issue-1996-06-05•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-06-05
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-06-05
issue-1996-06-05Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-06-05Proposed 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. 96-14145 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rollover Prevention
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28550-28560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14145]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 91-68; Notice 5]
RIN 2127-AC64
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rollover Prevention
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petitions for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces the denial of petitions for
reconsideration of the agency's decision to terminate rulemaking to
develop a vehicle rollover stability standard.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590:
For non-legal issues: Gayle Dalrymple, Office of Crash Avoidance
Standards, telephone (202) 366-5559, facsimile (202) 366-4329.
For legal issues: Steve Wood, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-20,
telephone (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. 1994 Notice Terminating Rulemaking on a Vehicle Rollover
Stability Standard
On June 28, 1994, NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Register
announcing two agency actions: (1) the termination of rulemaking to
develop a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard on vehicle rollover
stability; and (2) the proposal of a consumer regulation for labeling
vehicles with rollover stability information. (59 FR 33254)
In the portion of the 1994 notice terminating rulemaking, the
agency examined the suitability of using a variety of vehicle stability
metrics 1 as a basis for a rollover standard. NHTSA concluded that
two such metrics, tilt table angle (TTA) 2 and critical sliding
velocity (CSV),3 can each separately account for approximately
half of the variability in rollover risk in single vehicle accidents
remaining after considering driver, roadway, and environmental factors.
NHTSA stated:
1 A vehicle stability metric is a measured vehicle
characteristic that is analyzed to determine whether it is related
to a vehicle's likelihood of rollover involvement.
2 The tilt table test involves placing the vehicle on a
platform which is then tilted about an axis parallel to the
vehicle's longitudinal axis. TTA is the angle at which the last tire
on the upper side of the platform loses contact with the platform
and the vehicle begins to fall off the platform. This metric is
influenced by changes in a vehicle's mass, center of gravity height,
track width, and suspension movement, all of which are physically
related to rollover stability.
3 Critical sliding velocity includes the roll moment of
inertia as well as the various static factors included in tilt table
angle. CSV is calculated from an equation which can be found in the
June 28, 1994 notice, as corrected on July 26, 1994 (59 FR 38038).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The suitability of a vehicle safety standard based on rollover
stability depends on the importance of rollover stability, as
represented by a vehicle metric, relative to other rollover
influences, such as vehicle handling properties, vehicle condition,
the nature of the roadway and shoulder terrain, and driver behavior.
The agency sought to determine whether vehicle stability metrics are
significant variables in a statistical model of the risk of
rollover. If they are, then a standard regulating stability might be
justified, depending on the results of a comparison of benefits and
costs for such a standard.
After analyzing a number of static and dynamic rollover metrics,
the agency concluded that two vehicle metrics, tilt table angle and
critical sliding velocity, can account for about 50 percent of the
variability in rollover risk in single vehicle accidents, after
considering driver, roadway, and environmental factors. (Rollover
risk is the number of single vehicle rollovers involving a
particular make/model divided by the number of single vehicle
crashes of all types involving the same make/model.) This
statistical analysis was conducted on all light duty vehicles
treated as a group. However, analysis of accident data indicated
that certain subgroups of light duty vehicles are more likely to
roll over than other subgroups. For example, sport utility vehicles
and compact pickup trucks tend to be the most likely vehicles to
roll over. Large passenger cars tend to be the least likely to roll
over.
59 FR 33254, at 33258.
While NHTSA concluded that the two vehicle stability metrics were
of some value in estimating the likelihood that a single vehicle
accident involving a particular model of vehicle would result
[[Page 28551]]
in a rollover, the agency emphasized that analyses also ``show that
other factors in addition to those analyzed are affecting rollover
risk.'' (Id., at 33260) As the agency noted, ``[t]he suitability of a
vehicle safety standard based on rollover stability depends on the
importance of rollover stability, as represented by a vehicle metric,
relative to other rollover influences, such as vehicle handling
properties, vehicle condition, the nature of the roadway and shoulder
terrain, and driver behavior.'' (Id., at 33258) In other words, the
issue was not simply whether there is a statistical relationship, but
also whether that relationship is strong enough, considering other
influences, so that improvements in the stability metrics, especially
relatively small improvements, would generate benefits commensurate
with the costs. If the relationship is not sufficiently strong, even
significant changes in the stability metrics may be overwhelmed by the
other influences and thus fail to cause a significant change in
rollover experience.
The agency concluded that while each of the stability metrics has
some causal relationship to the potential for rollover and a
statistical relationship to real-world rollover frequency, a standard
based on either of the metrics would yield measurable benefits only if
it required that the metrics be increased to an extent that would
impose excessive costs and necessitate radically redesigning one or
more types of light trucks.4 The agency reached this conclusion
after examining the merits of establishing a single rollover standard
for all light duty vehicles (i.e., passenger cars and light trucks).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The term ``light trucks'' includes sport utility vehicles,
vans, and pickup trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536
kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to a single standard, the agency stated:
The agency also determined that, considering the costs and
benefits involved, proposing a safety standard specifying a single
minimum stability value for both cars and light trucks could not be
justified. While light trucks have lower stability measurements than
cars do, the greatest number of rollover-related deaths and injuries
occur in passenger cars because of their larger population size.
Therefore, if the agency wished to set a stability minimum high
enough to realize significant reductions in the number of fatalities
in all light duty vehicles, it would have to set the minimum above
the stability number of most light trucks. The costs of such a
standard, in terms of the cost of vehicle redesign and the loss of
consumer-desired attributes, were determined to be very high, as
entire classes of light trucks would probably need to be
substantially redesigned to meet such a standard. This redesign
could result in the elimination of some vehicle types, e.g., sport
utility vehicles, as they are known today.
Id., at 33258.
To avoid such drastic consequences for light trucks, the agency
considered whether it would be appropriate to set one standard for cars
and separate standards for various classes of light trucks.5 NHTSA
concluded that it was not appropriate. Since its analysis of the
ability of the two vehicle stability metrics to account for the
variability in rollover risk in single vehicle accidents was conducted
on all light duty vehicles as a group, the agency examined the ability
of the metrics to account for variability within individual subgroups
of those vehicles. Regarding the results of that examination, NHTSA
stated:
\5\ Id., at 33258.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[I]t was necessary to determine whether either of the stability
metrics exhibited sufficiently high levels of correlation to assure
the agency that a requirement applying to only one class of vehicle
would be expected to reduce the incidence of rollovers for vehicles
in that class. * * * [T]he agency found that the statistical
correlations of the metrics with rollover accident data within a
class of vehicles was not so consistent as for all vehicles grouped
together. This weakening of the predictive ability of the metric is,
to some extent, the result of the smaller range of the metric within
any class of vehicles together with the inherent variability in the
data. Based on this analysis, and the general analysis of costs and
benefits discussed later, the agency determined that proposing a
standard specifying one minimum stability value for cars and others
for various classes of light trucks could not be justified.
Id., at 33528.
II. Petitions for Reconsideration of Decision To Terminate
Rulemaking
In July 1994, the agency received two petitions for reconsideration
of its decision to terminate rulemaking on a rollover stability
standard. One petition was submitted by Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (Advocates/IIHS)
and the other by Randall and Sandy Vance, Doug White, and Robert and
Glenda Cammack (Vance, et al.). Both petitions asked NHTSA to
reconsider its decision to terminate rulemaking to establish a minimum
standard for vehicle rollover stability. The Vance et al. petition
expressed general disagreement with that decision, while the Advocates/
IIHS petition identified detailed points of disagreement. For this
reason, unless otherwise specified, references below to ``the
petition'' or ``the petitioners'' are references to the Advocates/IIHS
petition.
While the petitioners made numerous contentions, they focused on
four general areas: the character of a reasonable rollover standard,
the agency's statistical analysis of how a standard could be selected,
the agency's benefit calculations, and the agency's statements
concerning cost burden to the manufacturing industry. The following is
a summary of the more important contentions addressed in this notice
and the appendix to this notice:
NHTSA should have more thoroughly considered establishing
separate standards for separate classes of vehicles.
To achieve a better relationship between costs and
benefits, NHTSA should have considered the alternative of setting a
standard for the most rollover-prone vehicles within one or more of the
following groups: sport utility vehicles (SUVs), vans, and pickup
trucks.
Compact SUVs 6 are the most rollover prone group of
light duty vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The vehicles considered compact SUVs in NHTSA's analysis
were: Ford Explorer, Chevy S10 Blazer, Jeep Cherokee, Jeep Wrangler,
Toyota 4-Runner, Nissan Pathfinder, Geo Tracker, GMC S-15 Jimmy
(essentially a twin of the Blazer), Isuzu Trooper, Isuzu Rodeo,
Suzuki Sidekick (essentially a twin of the Tracker), Mazda Navaho
(essentially a twin of the 4WD Explorer), Mitsubishi Montero, Isuzu
Amigo, and Suzuki Samurai.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor vehicle changes (e.g., suspension changes) could be
used to achieve stability improvements at reasonable cost.
NHTSA did not provide any factual support for its
assertion that there are serious safety problems associated with
improving vehicle stability metrics through suspension changes.
NHTSA did not explain the nature and extent of the major
design changes that it said were necessary to meet any stability
metric, nor how much such changes would cost.
The level of projected benefits of a rollover standard was
understated by the agency because it:
used average class values in lieu of model specific
rollover accident data for the rollover experience of some vehicle
models;
used inappropriate statistical measures; and
viewed rollover prevention as accident mitigation instead
of accident prevention.
Although Congress did not mandate the issuance of a
rollover stability standard, it expected that such a standard would be
issued.
Contrary to NHTSA's position, the statute governing the
agency's vehicle
[[Page 28552]]
safety rulemaking readily permits the elimination of a class of
vehicles widely accepted in the marketplace.
The agency may not consider the policy concerns underlying
the Regulatory Flexibility Act without preparing a regulatory
flexibility analysis.
III. Response To Petitions for Reconsideration
In response to the petitions, the agency has reconsidered its
decision to terminate rulemaking on a rollover stability standard. As
explained below, the agency is, on reconsideration, reaffirming that
decision.
The petitions raise several points that are not disputed by NHTSA;
however, they do not compel the conclusion that NHTSA should establish
a rollover standard based on vehicle stability metrics. For example,
the agency agrees that single vehicle rollover is a significant safety
problem. NHTSA also agrees that the two vehicle stability metrics are
useful in estimating the likelihood that a single vehicle accident
involving a particular model of vehicle will result in a rollover.
Finally, the agency agrees that it is appropriate in determining
the desirability of a rollover standard to consider a rollover standard
regulating vehicles in the most rollover-prone groups. While the 1994
notice focused primarily on the approach of a single standard for all
light duty vehicles, the agency did analyze separate standards for
separate classes of vehicles. The notice explained that the predictive
ability of the vehicle stability metrics decreased as the vehicle
population was divided into smaller groups. As noted above, the agency
concluded that ``a standard specifying one minimum stability value for
cars and others for various classes of light trucks could not be
justified.'' (Id., at 33257). Since the petitioners suggest issuing a
rollover standard regulating the most rollover-prone vehicles, NHTSA
has focused on such an approach in responding to the petitions for
reconsideration. The agency agrees with the petitioners that, in
theory, the comparatively high rollover rate of compact SUVs makes a
standard regulating that group of vehicles appear more likely to
generate benefits commensurate with its costs than would a standard
regulating any other group of vehicles.
These areas of agreement are insufficient, however, to lead the
agency to the conclusion reached by petitioners. To the contrary, the
agency's detailed analysis below of a rollover stability standard based
on TTA or CSV demonstrates that the costs and other impacts of such a
standard manifestly outweigh the estimated but uncertain benefits.
A general response to the petitioners' arguments appears below.
Certain issues are covered in greater detail in the Appendix to this
notice.
IV. Rationale for Reaffirming Decision To Terminate
A. Summary
Following its examination of the arguments raised by the
petitioners, the agency has revisited and, in some respects expanded,
its rationale for terminating rulemaking on a vehicle stability
standard. The agency again concludes that it is not appropriate to
establish a vehicle rollover stability standard based on a vehicle
stability metric.
If a stability standard were set at a level that would require only
minor vehicle changes in order for the affected models to achieve
compliance, the standard would not produce any safety benefits. Minor
vehicle changes, which consist predominately of suspension changes,
would not produce significant improvements in the vehicle stability
metrics and would not be likely to result in any reductions in
fatalities and injuries.\7\ Moreover, there is reason to conclude that
such suspension changes would, in fact, produce negative safety side
effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ As noted above, the agency stated in the 1994 notice that a
standard limited in its application to a vehicle subgroup (e.g.,
sport utility vehicles) is particularly unlikely to reduce
fatalities and injuries given the weaker statistical relationships
between the stability metrics and the rollover involvement for
vehicle subgroups. (Id., at 33528)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a stability standard were set high enough to require significant
improvements in the vehicle stability metrics, it would necessitate
full vehicle redesigns and major vehicle changes. However, the safety
benefits of such changes would nevertheless be relatively modest.
Moreover, the overall costs and loss of consumer choice resulting from
full vehicle redesigns involving major vehicle changes would be
substantial and excessive. On balance, the potential for improved
vehicle safety associated with such improvements in the vehicle
stability metrics is not sufficiently large to justify such redesigns.
B. Vehicle Changes To Increase Vehicle Stability Metrics
There are two general categories of vehicle changes that would
increase the vehicle stability metrics (TTA and CSV). One consists of
relatively minor vehicle changes (i.e., suspension changes); the other,
of major vehicle changes (i.e., widening the vehicle track and lowering
the center of gravity) that could only be achieved through full
redesign of the vehicle. The petitioners appear to believe that a
vehicle can be redesigned so it will be significantly less likely to
roll over, that the means for accomplishing this will be ``invisible''
to the consumer, and that the vehicle will look and function as it did
before the redesign. As discussed below, redesigning a vehicle to
significantly reduce its likelihood of rolling over necessarily
involves making fundamental changes in the vehicle's dimensions (making
it wider, longer, lower, heavier) and compromising its utility to
consumers (e.g., by reducing its fuel efficiency, ground clearance,
load-carrying capacity, off-road capability, or driveability on snowy
roads).
1. Minor Vehicle Changes To Increase Vehicle Stability Metrics
Minor vehicle changes have very little effect on the vehicle
stability metrics. Moreover, they do not result in net safety
improvements.
As the petitioners correctly point out, the Preliminary Regulatory
Evaluation (PRE) for the 1992 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) suggested that there were grounds for optimism about the
ability of minor vehicle changes, such as suspension tuning, to affect
stability metrics and improve rollover stability. (57 FR 242; January
3, 1992) However, after reviewing the comments on the 1992 ANPRM, the
agency concluded in the 1994 notice that minor vehicle changes could
not, in fact, significantly affect the vehicle stability metrics.
Comments from Advocates itself,\8\ as well as Ford and General Motors,
on the ANPRM indicate that suspension changes result in very little
improvement in rollover stability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In commenting on the ANPRM, Advocates indicated that it did
not share the agency's optimism at that time about the desirability
of relying on suspension changes to improve rollover stability
metrics. Advocates commented that the selection of TTR as the
parameter to be regulated would ``permit a manufacturer to attempt
manipulation of other stability-related elements of the vehicle's
design, such as its suspension, in order to secure a barely passing
tilt- table score.'' It also expressed concern that the agency ``may
be already tending towards selection of TTRs [see footnote 12] that
will not move the industry towards safer overall vehicle designs,
particularly with regard to wheelbase, width, length, and center of
gravity height, but rather will encourage the perpetuation of the
status quo designs especially with regard to very small cars, small
pickups, and SUVs that will continue to show high rollover
propensities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, vehicle rollover stability is not the same as vehicle
handling and control. Some measures that improve
[[Page 28553]]
TTA or CSV do not necessarily result in improved directional control
and stability. Available information suggests that directional control
and stability would be adversely affected as a result of relying upon
suspension changes to make small increases in the vehicle stability
metrics. This information was supplied in comments from Advocates,
Ford, and General Motors on the ANPRM expressing concern with the side
effects of suspension changes to improve TTA.
For example, Ford used a computer simulation of a compact pickup
truck to evaluate the effect of a series of suspension changes on
directional stability and side-to-side load transfer in cornering.
(Docket 91-68-N01-21) Ford evaluated substantial suspension changes,
including a 30 percent increase in spring rates, removal of stabilizer
bars, and a change in the front suspension roll center by 1.5 inches.
It also examined a ride height change that would lower the center of
gravity by 0.5 inch. Ford noted that, in general, tuning a suspension
system such that both the front and rear tires lift from the tilt table
simultaneously would maximize the TTA. However, this optimization
requires either decreasing the front roll stiffness (by removing the
front stabilizer bar), or increasing the rear roll stiffness (by using
a 30 percent greater rear spring rate). The simulation showed that,
among the suspension changes examined by Ford, these two changes made
the greatest improvements in TTA (an increase of 0.62 and 0.55 degrees,
respectively). However, these changes were also shown to alter
directional stability toward oversteer (i.e., these changes tend to
make a vehicle turn more sharply than a driver intends). Ford's
simulation showed that other suspension changes, such as an increase in
front spring rate or a decrease in front roll center height, could
increase TTA (to a lesser degree than those mentioned above), while
altering directional stability toward understeer (i.e., these changes
tend to make a vehicle turn less sharply that a driver intends). The
only minor change mentioned by Ford in its comment which improved TTA
without influencing directional stability was lowering the vehicle c.g.
height by 0.5 inch, resulting in only a 0.17 degree increase in TTA.
Based on its consideration of such comments, the agency concludes
that suspension changes would not produce significant improvements in
rollover stability and would have the potential to cause undesirable
changes in directional stability and handling, which in turn could lead
to an increase in crashes. In view of this conclusion, the agency has
not examined whether those changes could be made at a reasonable cost,
since they are unlikely to yield net safety benefits.
2. Major Vehicle Changes To Increase Vehicle Stability Metrics
Thus, significant improvements to the vehicle stability metrics
could be achieved only through making major changes to the vehicle
chassis and body to increase the track width and/or lower the center of
gravity. These major changes would require full vehicle redesigns that
substantially change the parameters affecting vehicle stability
metrics. The necessary extent of such redesigns is illustrated in the
following example. Given that the center of gravity height for a
typical compact SUV 9 is 27 inches, to raise its TTA (42.9
degrees) to that of the typical full- size SUV (46.4 degrees), it would
be necessary to increase the track width (i.e., the distance between
the left and right tires on an axle) more than 6 inches. Further, such
a track width increase would require a corresponding wheelbase (i.e.,
the distance between the front and rear axles) lengthening of 10 inches
to retain the braking stability of the smaller SUV. As noted later in
the sections regarding cost and impact on consumer choice, such
modifications would eliminate most of the compact SUVs as they
currently exist, converting the typical compact SUV into a full-size
SUV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ A ``typical compact SUV'' and a ``typical full-size SUV''
are hypothetical vehicles with the average TTA and dimensions of all
the vehicles in their class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citing the example of the GMC Jimmy, which was redesigned for 1995,
petitioners argued that vehicle manufacturers can gradually redesign
their compact SUVs so as to increase their vehicle stability. The
petitioners presented an article from Automotive News stating that the
new Jimmy is longer, lower, and wider than its predecessor.10 The
petitioners further attributed to the new Jimmy ``a chassis
modification that can result in better stability metrics and in lower
rollover crash rates.'' 11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Advocates/IIHS petition, attachment 2.
11 Advocates/IIHS petition, page 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA draws a very different lesson than do petitioners from the
example of the Jimmy. In the agency's view, the petitioners
underestimate the extent to which the parameters affecting a vehicle's
stability metrics must be changed to significantly improve those
metrics. As explained below, the overall lessons of the new Jimmy are
that even a significant partial redesign of a vehicle will change its
vehicle stability metrics little in the absence of major changes to the
vehicle's c.g. height and track width, and that even minor changes in
those parameters may come at the cost of adversely affecting other
attributes desired by consumers. For example, the new Jimmy is heavier
and more costly than the prior model.
The agency agrees that the vehicle stability metrics of the new
Jimmy are likely to be somewhat better than those of the old Jimmy.
Although the agency has no TTA or CSV data on the new design, its lower
body height and wider track suggest that it has a slightly better TTA
than its predecessor and its longer, wider, and heavier body suggests
that it may have a greater roll moment of inertia and, therefore, a
slightly greater CSV.
However, the increases in the Jimmy's vehicle stability metrics are
likely to be very small. The reason is that the changes made to the
parameters affecting those metrics were relatively minor. Although the
changes increased the size and weight of the Jimmy, the magnitude of
those changes fell short of the levels needed to make a significant
improvement in its TTA or CSV. The body height of the 2WD model was
reduced by 1.6 inches, but the associated reduction in center of
gravity height is likely to be much less, since the location of the
engine, drive train, suspension, and passenger accommodation component
masses remained unchanged. The height reduction of the 4WD model was
only 0.8 inches. Likewise, the body width was increased by 2.4 inches,
but the front and rear track widths of the 4WD model were increased
less: 1.6 and 1.0 inches, respectively. The 2WD model track width
increases were even less: 0.9 inch at the front and 0.5 inch at the
rear.
Taken together, these changes to the Jimmy's parameters affecting
the rollover stability metrics are very minor compared to the ones
described above as being necessary for a typical compact SUV to achieve
a TTA of 46.4 degrees. Thus, these changes predict at best a very small
improvement in TTA or CSV.
The impact of such small improvements in vehicle stability metrics
on rollover risk is unknown. Since this is a new model for 1995,
neither NHTSA nor the petitioners have data on the rollover experience
of the new Jimmy. There is no way to know at this time if the changes
will actually lead to a reduced risk of rollover.
C. Benefits of Improvements in Vehicle Stability Metrics
NHTSA's 1994 notice estimated that the benefits of a rollover
standard requiring a TTA of 46.4 degrees for all light duty vehicles
included a modest
[[Page 28554]]
amount of benefits for compact SUVs. The agency's estimate that 63
fatalities and 61 serious injuries might be prevented for all light
duty vehicles included the prevention of 31 fatalities and 22 serious
injuries for compact SUVs. The potential compact SUV benefits were
predominately attributable to those particular compact SUV models that
would require significant changes in track width and/or center of
gravity height to achieve the required TTA.
As part of its review of the petitions, the agency recomputed its
estimate of the benefits of making significant design changes in order
to raise the TTR 12 of compact SUVs to 1.05,13 using data
that were not available for some makes and models when the analysis was
done for the 1994 notice.14 The agency estimates that, using the
more current data and certain optimistic assumptions (discussed below),
22 serious injuries and 32 fatalities might be prevented annually if
all new compact SUVs were redesigned to the extent necessary so that
each vehicle in that class had a TTR of 1.05 and if all existing
compact SUVs with a lower TTR were retired from the vehicles-in-use
fleet. The potential benefits for a rollover stability standard are
computed by considering:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 TTR is the tangent of TTA. In its analysis prior to
the 1994 notice, the agency used TTR. Because TTA is an easier
concept to depict on labels for the general public, the agency
proposed the use of TTA rather than TTR for the vehicle label under
a consumer information regulation that was proposed in the 1994
notice. NHTSA used TTA throughout the 1994 notice for that reason.
However, NHTSA has not converted the TTR values to TTA values when
discussing its statistical and benefits analyses in this document.
13 A TTR of 1.05 is the equivalent of a TTA of 46.4
degrees. On page 33261 of the 1994 notice, the agency explained
that, if the agency were to adopt a rollover stability standard
applicable to all vehicles, a TTA of 46.4 degrees was the highest
practicable standard. The agency explained that a TTA of 46.4
degrees is representative of the average full-size SUV. Since the
design changes to increase TTA to that level would cause a compact
SUV to approach the size of full-size SUVs, establishing any higher
standard, whether for all vehicles or for compact SUVs alone, would
lead to the virtual elimination of compact SUVs as that class
currently exists.
14 The recomputation was performed using the same
procedures used for the 1994 estimates and explained in detail in
the document ``Potential Reductions in Fatalities and Injuries in
Single Vehicle Rollover Crashes as a Result of a Minimum Rollover
Stability Standard.'' That document is in Docket 91-68; Notice 3.
However, while the procedures were the same, an expanded set of data
(the number of rollover accidents and single vehicle accidents) were
used in the recomputation to increase its accuracy. The use of the
new data adequately addresses the petitioners' concerns about the
agency's use in the 1994 notice of weighted averages for models for
which there was insufficient data to determine the actual rollover
rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The reduction of rollovers per single vehicle accident (RO/SVA)
predicted for increases in TTR;
(2) The number of single vehicle accidents experienced by vehicles
that would need to be altered in order to comply with the standard; and
(3) The degree of harm mitigation (in the number of fatalities and
serious injuries) as a result of rollover prevention given that a
single vehicle accident has occurred.
The following table, corresponding to Table 1 of the document
``Potential Reductions in Fatalities and Injuries in Single Vehicle
Rollover Crashes as a Result of a Minimum Rollover Stability
Standard,'' contains the results of this latest computation. For an
explanation of the headings and entries in the table, see that
document.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Est % Projected AIS3 + Fatality
MY 1991 1986-88 5 1986-90 of Est AIS3 Est RO/SVA @ reduction reduction
Compact SUV make model Drive production TTR state SVA/RV Michigan compact + fatalities min TTR @ min TTR @ min TTR
RO/SVA SUV ROs injuries 1.05 1.05 1.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle A.................................... 2 WD*\15\ 65,515 0.88 **\16\0.0068 **0.359 6 39 28 0.270 9.6 6.9
4 WD 184,554 0.88 **0.0068 **0.359 16 110 79 0.270 27.2 19.5
Vehicle B.................................... 2 WD 29,480 0.95 0.0103 0.342 4 25 18 0.280 4.6 3.3
4 WD 93,866 0.99 **0.0102 0.27 9 63 45 0.244 6.1 4.4
Vehicle C.................................... 2 WD* 19,920 1.08 0.0091 0.317 2 14 10 ........... ......... .........
4 WD 101,541 1.08 0.0091 0.317 11 71 51 ........... ......... .........
Vehicle D.................................... 2 WD 0 ........... ............ ......... ....... ........ .......... ........... ......... .........
4 WD 46,478 1.03 0.0163 0.273 8 50 36 0.263 1.8 1.3
Vehicle E.................................... 2 WD* 4,892 1.01 0.0211 0.362 1 9 7 0.338 0.6 0.4
4 WD 39,989 1.01 0.0211 0.362 11 74 53 0.338 4.9 3.5
Vehicle F.................................... 2 WD* 3,555 0.93 **0.0215 **0.315 1 6 4 0.258 1.1 0.8
4 WD 35,945 0.93 **0.0215 **0.315 9 59 42 0.258 10.8 7.7
Vehicle G.................................... 2 WD 0 ........... ............ ......... ....... ........ .......... ........... ......... .........
4 WD 30,702 0.978 ............ 0.394 5 31 22 0.348 3.6 2.6
Vehicle H.................................... 2 WD 6,479 0.95 0.0114 0.259 1 5 3 0.219 0.7 0.5
4 WD 23,515 0.99 **0.0123 0.252 3 18 13 0.228 1.7 1.2
Vehicle I.................................... 2 WD 0 ........... ............ ......... ....... ........ .......... ........... ......... .........
4 WD 26,776 0.98 ............ **0.481 5 33 24 0.427 3.7 2.7
Vehicle J.................................... 2 WD* 740 0.947 ............ ......... 0 1 0 0.281 0.1 0.1
4 WD 23,870 0.947 ............ ......... 3 20 15 0.281 3.3 2.1
Vehicle K.................................... 2 WD* 1,257 0.978 ............ 0.407 0 2 1 0.360 0.2 0.1
4 WD 10,492 0.978 ............ 0.407 2 13 10 0.360 1.6 1.1
Vehicle L.................................... 2 WD 0 ........... ............ ......... ....... ........ .......... ........... ......... .........
4 WD 11,404 0.88 **0.0068 **0.359 1 7 5 0.270 1.7 1.2
Vehicle M.................................... 2 WD 0 ........... ............ ......... ....... ........ .......... ........... ......... .........
4 WD 10,616 0.93 ............ ......... 1 9 7 0.274 1.7 1.2
Vehicle N.................................... 2 WD* 5,011 1.016 ............ ......... 1 4 3 0.315 0.2 0.2
4 WD 2,818 1.016 ............ ......... 0 2 2 0.315 0.1 0.1
Vehicle O.................................... 2 WD* 832 1.04 ............ ......... 0 1 1 0.329 0.0 0.0
4 WD 3,546 1.04 ............ ......... 0 3 2 0.329 0.1 0.0
[[Page 28555]]
Weighted Averge.............................. ............................. .......... ........... 0.01049 0.335 ....... ........ .......... ........... ......... .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total \17\............................. ............................. 783,783 ........... ............ ......... 100 669 480 ........... 85.0 61.0
Total \18\............................. ............................. .......... ........... ............ ......... ....... ........ .......... ........... 22.0 32
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ An ``*'' in this column indicates that the agency lacked sufficient data for the 2WD version of the model. For these models, the agency assumed that the 2WD version had the same TTR and
the same rollover rate as the 4WD version.
\16\ An ``**'' in this column and in the next one indicates that 1988-91 Michigan accident data were used instead of the data indicated by the column heading.
\17\ The serious injury and fatality reduction figures in this row are the benefits that might result if the standard prevented not only a rollover, but also an accident of any type.
\18\ The serious injury and fatality reduction figures in this row are the benefits that might result if the standard prevented a rollover, but still allowed an injury-causing accident of some
type to occur after the vehicle left the road. The injury and fatality figures in this row were derived by multiplying the figures in the row immediately above by a mitigation factor of 26
percent for injuries and 52 percent for fatalities. For further details on these factors, see section 3 of the Appendix to this notice.
There are two optimistic assumptions incorporated in the
computation process for both the original and new estimates: \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The agency made these assumptions because limitations in
available data made it impossible to use more precise values. When
making these assumptions, the agency took an optimistic approach so
as to present the prospects of a vehicle stability standard in the
best possible light.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of rollover injuries and fatalities prevented
will be proportional to the number of rollovers prevented; and
The fatality and injury rates of the late 1980's will be
representative of future rates.
The effect of these optimistic assumptions is that these new
estimates, like the 1994 estimates based on the same assumptions, may
in fact overstate the actual benefits, i.e., the number of fatalities
and injuries likely to be prevented by improving the TTR of compact
SUVs to 1.05.
The first assumption assumes that the rollover accidents that would
be prevented as a result of requiring an increase in TTR would have the
same fatality and injury rates as rollover accidents in general. There
is reason to believe that this would not be the case. The likelihood of
fatalities and serious injuries in rollover accidents is heavily skewed
toward crashes involving more than one quarter turn. Data show that
light truck rollover crashes involving only a single quarter turn have
about one-third the fatality rate of the average rollover. This
difference in likelihood of harm is significant if moderately improving
TTR would not be equally likely to prevent a multiple quarter-turn
rollover as a single quarter-turn rollover. NHTSA believes that it is
more likely that the prevented rollovers would tend to be the lowest
energy rollovers, i.e., the single quarter-turn rollovers. At best,
improving TTR would only slightly mitigate the more severe rollovers.
Thus, by assuming that rollovers prevented by an improvement in TTR
would be average rollovers instead of the least severe rollovers, the
agency is overstating the benefits obtainable from such an improvement.
Had the agency based its benefit estimates on the fatality rate of
rollovers involving a single quarter turn, the estimated number of
prevented fatalities would have been about 11 instead of 32.
The second assumption, that the fatality and injury rate in
rollovers will remain constant, is likely to overstate the benefits of
a vehicle stability standard since, if recent trends continue, future
increases in safety belt use, as a result of Federal, state, and local
efforts, can reasonably be expected to reduce the overall harm from
rollover accidents. As belt use increases, rollover casualties
decrease, even if the number of rollover crashes remains constant.
Consequently, even with liberal assumptions and using the most
current and complete database available, NHTSA estimates that a
rollover stability standard requiring compact SUVs to achieve the same
TTR (1.05) as the typical full-size SUV would prevent 22 serious
injuries and 32 fatalities annually. While precise quantification is
impossible, the agency believes, for the reasons stated above, that the
actual level of safety benefits would be significantly lower.
D. Costs of Improvements in Vehicle Stability Metrics
The substantial vehicle redesigns necessary to enable many existing
compact SUVs to achieve a TTR of 1.05 and produce the estimated
reductions in fatalities and injuries discussed above would have
substantial negative impacts, both in terms of reduced consumer choice
and unmet preferences and in terms of increases in manufacturer and
consumer costs.\20\ As noted above, the only way to achieve significant
increases in TTR is to increase the track width and/or lower the center
of gravity. Increasing track width or lowering the center of gravity,
using conventional, commonly used designs and production methods, would
necessarily, and significantly, increase vehicle size and weight. For
NHTSA, in effect, to require compact SUVs to approach the size and
weight of full-size SUVs would run counter to consumer preferences that
have led to the existing fleet of compact SUVs. The strength of those
preferences is demonstrated by the fact that compact SUVs outsold full-
size SUVs by a margin of six to one in 1994, the latest year for which
the agency has sales data.\21\ The Ford Explorer, the compact SUV model
with the lowest TTR and therefore the compact SUV which would be most
affected by any minimum standard, is the best-selling SUV and is the
ninth most popular make/model of all car and truck models combined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ As explained in the Appendix, NHTSA made two cost
estimates. The first was based on the assumption that compact SUVs
needing a TTR increase of more than 0.06 would require a full
vehicle redesign. The second was based on the assumption that only
compact SUVs needing a TTR increase of more than 0.04 would require
such a redesign.
\21\ Model year 1994 sales data from Automotive News 1995 Market
Data Book, Crain Communications, Detroit, Michigan, May 24, 1995.
All light trucks--6,097,787 vehicles.
Compact SUVs--21.9% of light trucks, or 1,335,415 vehicles.
Full-size SUVs--3.6% of light trucks, or 219,520 vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upsizing compact SUVs so as to eliminate much of the size and
weight difference between those vehicles and full-size SUVs also might
have a significant adverse affect on the
[[Page 28556]]
production and sales of SUVs. The body of the average full-size SUV is
currently about 10 inches wider than that of the average compact SUV,
and the track width is about 9 inches greater. The 6-inch increase in
track width necessary to bring the TTR of compact SUVs up to that of
full-size SUVs (assuming no increase in c.g. height) would remove much
of those differences between compact SUVs and full-size SUVs. Given the
admonition in the legislative history of the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act against eliminating vehicle types (see the
discussion in section D of the Appendix to this notice), such a
dramatic potential impact on the design of compact SUVs and on the
market for those vehicles must be carefully weighed.
In addition to impacts on consumer choice and sales, there are
substantial monetary costs associated with redesigning those compact
SUVs that would need significant increases in TTR to meet a standard of
1.05.\22\ The agency estimated those costs using confidential cost data
submitted by domestic automobile manufacturers during the course of
several agency rulemaking proceedings to establish light truck
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. The estimated consumer
cost of bringing all such new compact SUVs into compliance with such a
standard is between $310 million and $335 million, depending on which
of two assumptions is made about the vehicles that would require a full
vehicle redesign. A detailed discussion of the method used to estimate
these costs is included in the Appendix to this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ As demonstrated by Table 1, the vast majority of the
measurable benefits from such a standard would come from
improvements to these fully redesigned vehicles, instead of those
vehicles that would need only lesser changes to comply with the
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency believes that the foregoing estimate of the costs of a
rollover standard requiring compact SUVs to achieve a minimum TTR of
1.05 is understated. Those estimates do not include the incremental
costs of material and labor involved in the manufacture of a larger
vehicle. In addition, the estimates do not include any costs for
vehicles that would only need minor changes, instead of a full vehicle
redesign, to comply with the standard. NHTSA has not attempted to
calculate those costs because the benefits of the standard are already
outweighed by the initial cost estimate.
The agency recognizes that providing a lengthy leadtime period
would reduce the costs of compliance to the extent that manufacturers
were able to make their compliance efforts coincide with their normal
model changeover timetable. However, providing additional leadtime
would do nothing to reduce the adverse impacts on consumer preferences.
Further, an extended lead time would not affect the costs of additional
labor or materials.
VI. Conclusion
The discussion above and in the Appendix demonstrates that even a
standard applicable only to compact SUVs, the vehicle type that the
petitioners characterize as one of the two ``most rollover-prone
vehicle types,'' 23 would generate substantial adverse impacts on
manufacturers and consumers, both in terms of monetary costs and in
loss of consumer choice, that would outweigh the benefits of such a
standard. There is no reason to believe that a standard that would
mandate significant increases in TTR/TTA or CSV for any other vehicle
type or group of vehicle types would be any more cost beneficial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 Advocates/IIHS petition, page 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, NHTSA reaffirms its decision to terminate this
rulemaking without proposing a rollover stability performance standard.
Issued on May 31, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
Appendix
The Advocates/IIHS petition contained many detailed technical
arguments. Responses to the more significant ones are provided in
this appendix.
A. The Benefits Estimate
1. Replacing Weighted Averages With Actual Rollover Data Now Available
Makes No Appreciable Change in the Estimate
The petitioners criticized the benefit estimates made by the
agency in connection with the 1994 notice because, for those vehicle
models for which the agency lacked sufficient rollover accident
data, it used the average of the rollover per single vehicle
accident rate (RO/SVA) of the class of vehicles to which that make
and model belonged, weighted by the 1991 production of each make and
model for which the agency had RO/SVA. The benefits were calculated
using the TTRs of 1991 makes and models and the accident records of
1991 makes and models (and identical vehicles from prior model
years) to represent a hypothetical future fleet.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 A detailed discussion of the method can be found in
``Potential Reductions in Fatalities and Injuries in Single Vehicle
Rollover Crashes as a Result of a Minimum Rollover Stability
Standard'' in Docket 91-68, Notice 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners pointed out that the average TTR for vehicles
for which the agency did not have adequate RO/SVA data was lower
than the average TTR of vehicles for which it had RO/SVA data, and
therefore claimed that use of weighted averages was inappropriate.
The petitioners' criticism concerning the use of weighted averages
as substitutes for missing data was focused particularly on the use
of those averages for the large number of vehicles in the
hypothetical future fleet that were represented by the Ford
Explorer. The agency had no RO/SVA or single vehicle accident
involvement rate (SVA/RV) data for the Ford Explorer and certain
other vehicles at the time of the notice because they were either
recently introduced or comparatively low production volume models.
The petitioners argued that a higher rollover rate should have been
used for vehicles like the Explorer which have a lower TTA than the
vehicles from which the weighted average was derived.
It is not appropriate to assume that a higher than average
rollover rate is appropriate for the Explorer or the other vehicles
simply based on their having a lower than average TTA. The data
demonstrate that the order of vehicle models ranked according to TTA
is not the same as the order of models ranked according to rollover
rate. See Table 1 in the accompanying notice of denial of petitions
for reconsideration. Thus, although two different vehicle models may
have the same TTA, they may not necessarily have the same rollover
rate. Likewise, a vehicle model with a TTA lower than that of
another model may nevertheless have a lower rollover rate, and vice
versa.
Accordingly, the agency has not assumed a higher rollover rate
for those models for which sufficient rollover data are lacking.
However, the agency has responded to the petitioners' concern about
the use of weighted averages in connection with the 1994 notice by
replacing those averages, where possible, with rates based on actual
rollover accident data that became available after that notice was
prepared.
Where sufficient, the 1988--1991 Michigan accident data were
used to calculate the rollover rate figures for models for which
data were previously missing. Following the practice of previous
analyses, the agency used the accident data to calculate rollover
rates only for makes and models which had at least 25 single vehicle
accidents. Actual rollover rates (RO/SVA) from Michigan were added
for the 4WD Ford Explorer, Nissan Pathfinder, and Isuzu Trooper, and
actual single vehicle accident rates (SVA/RV) were added for the 4WD
Ford Explorer, the 4WD S10 Blazer, the Nissan Pathfinder, and the
4WD GMC S15 Jimmy. The 4WD Explorer data were used for the nearly
identical, but low production volume, Mazda Navajo.
There were still some models for which the agency lacked
sufficient actual make and model accident data. For most of these
models, while the agency lacked sufficient data for the 2WD versions
of those models, it had sufficient data for the more numerous 4WD
versions. In these instances, the agency assumed that the rates for
the 2WD versions were identical to the rates for the 4WD versions of
the same make and model, instead of calculating rates based on
weighted averages. New weighted averages
[[Page 28557]]
were computed on the basis of the expanded data and were used only
where sufficient specific data remained unavailable for a particular
model. The instances in which the agency computed new weighted
averages were limited. Weighted averages of RO/SVA and SVA/RV were
used for less than 10 percent and 19 percent, respectively, of the
example population of compact SUVs. See Table 1.
Using actual rollover data wherever available, the agency
recomputed the benefit estimates for compact SUVs. Substitution of
the new rollover rates produced very little change in the estimate
of the numbers of fatalities and serious injuries that might be
prevented if a rollover stability standard were adopted for compact
SUVs. Replacing the weighted averages used in the 1994 notice with
rates based on accident data for particular makes and models changed
the result of the analysis very little, i.e., by less than four
percent. This may be seen by comparing the estimates of the benefits
that would be obtained if preventing a rollover meant preventing an
accident altogether. Those benefits were estimated to be 83 serious
injuries and 59 fatalities in the 1994 notice. They have been
recomputed to be 85 serious injuries and 61 fatalities, based on the
new accident data and less reliance on weighted averages. See Table
1.
2. Accident Mitigation, Not Accident Prevention, Is the Proper Measure
of Benefits
Since an accident would still occur in the vast majority of
instances in which a rollover is prevented, the agency reduced those
figures accordingly using an accident mitigation factor. The
resulting new benefit estimate is 22 serious injuries and 32
fatalities.
The petitioners criticized the agency for making the same
adjustment to the benefits in the 1994 notice. Then, as now, NHTSA
assumed that the benefits would come from accident mitigation
instead of accident prevention. It was appropriate for the agency to
assume that the benefits would be in terms of accident mitigation
since over 90 percent of all single vehicle rollovers are off-road,
tripped rollovers, i.e., rollovers that occur when a vehicle leaves
the roadway sideways, encounters a tripping mechanism, and rolls.
Since a vehicle is running off the road in a tripped rollover
situation, such a vehicle will still likely crash into some off-road
object even if the vehicle is prevented from rolling over after it
leaves the road. If a rollover can be prevented in that situation,
then the resulting accident will most likely be one of lower
severity than if a rollover had occurred because rollovers tend to
be more severe than non-rollover accidents. The primary benefits
from a rollover stability standard would result from preventing the
more severe form of off-road accident.
3. A Single Accident Mitigation Factor, Not Separate Factors for
Individual Vehicle Types, Is the Proper Basis for Measuring Benefits
The petitioners also criticized the agency for using a single
accident mitigation factor (52 percent) for fatalities across the
board instead of computing separate factors for different types of
vehicles. In support of their argument for the use of different
factors, they noted that rollover accidents account for 80 percent
of the fatalities of the occupants of compact SUVs in single vehicle
accidents. Based on this, the petitioners concluded that rollovers
in compact SUVs are four times as deadly as non-rollover accidents,
and therefore the agency should have used a mitigation factor of 75
percent for compact SUVs.
The agency rejects the petitioners' argument. A mitigation
factor based on ratios of absolute numbers of fatalities, instead of
on fatality rates, is incorrect unless the same number of occupants
were exposed to rollover accidents and non-rollover accidents. If
the exposure is not the same, then it is impossible to determine the
extent to which the ratio reflects the difference in accident
exposure versus a difference in accident severity. Further, the
issue of a difference in accident severity is not just a matter of
the difference in severity of a rollover accident and a non-rollover
accident at the same speed. It is also a matter of possible
differences in speed. For example, it is necessary to determine
whether the consequences of 60 mph rollovers are being compared to
those of 30 mph non-rollover accidents. Finally, it is also
necessary to examine whether apparent differences between vehicle
groups are a result of differences in crashworthiness, or just a
consequence of smaller sample sizes.
The agency's use of a single mitigation factor for fatalities
takes these considerations into account. NHTSA considered the number
of occupants exposed to rollover and non-rollover single vehicle
accidents as well as the number of fatalities for each accident
type. It also considered the speed limit of the road as a rough
indication of the severity of the accident.
As a first step in determining the mitigation factor, NHTSA
compared the overall fatality rate of rollover accidents to the
overall fatality rate of non-rollover accidents, based on single
vehicle accidents of all cars and light trucks without consideration
of accident severity. The fatality rate of rollover accidents was
slightly more than twice that of non-rollovers, suggesting a 52
percent mitigation factor.
Next, the agency computed a series of relative fatality rates
(with and without rollover), comparing only accidents occurring on
roads with the same range of posted speed limits (25 mph or less;
30-35 mph; 40-50 mph; 55-65 mph). While the accident data do not
indicate the actual accident speed, grouping by speed limit acts as
a rough control on accident severity, because it restricts accident
groups to the same kinds of roads, even though the actual range of
crash speeds may significantly exceed the range of posted speed
limits for a particular group of accidents. The relative fatality
rate for each road speed limit group were added and then averaged.
The result was the same 52 percent mitigation factor for fatalities.
Using the same process led to a mitigation factor of 26 percent for
serious injuries.
In addition, even if the agency were to use different mitigation
factors for different vehicle types, their use would not result in
dramatic changes in benefit estimates. For compact SUVs, the 75
percent mitigation factor suggested by the petitioners would result
in a fatality reduction of 46 rather than the 32 calculated by the
agency. This difference is 0.15 percent of the 9,000 annual rollover
fatalities. Using the estimates prepared for the 1994 notice, for
the entire light duty vehicle fleet, the use of different mitigation
factors resulted in predicting 71, instead of the agency's 63, lives
saved from requiring a TTR of 1.05. This is a difference of 0.089
percent.
B. The Cost Estimate
The petitioners criticized the agency for failing to provide any
costs for the vehicle changes that would be necessary to meet a
minimum rollover stability standard. The agency concluded in the
1994 notice that a large number of vehicles would require
fundamental full redesigns to meet a minimum stability standard.
Because the agency was aware of the magnitude of costs involved in
vehicle redesigns, it was apparent that the costs and other impacts
would substantially exceed the benefits. NHTSA did not, however,
provide a quantification of those costs and other impacts.
To demonstrate the validity of its conclusion about the costs
and other impacts, the agency has conducted a rough cost analysis
for this notice as set forth below.2 To estimate the compliance
costs for those vehicles which would have to be fully redesigned to
make the substantial changes necessary to comply with a minimum
stability standard, the agency used confidential cost data submitted
by domestic automobile manufacturers during the course of several
agency rulemaking proceedings for light truck Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) standards. These data are manufacturer estimates of
the costs of full redesigns of compact SUVs that would have been
necessary if the CAFE standards had been set at certain levels.
These submissions include estimates of investment costs for a
redesigned vehicle model, but do not include material and labor
costs for the manufacture of the vehicle. NHTSA believes a full
vehicle redesign for rollover stability purposes would necessitate
similar investment costs. Accordingly, it is appropriate to use the
investment cost figures from the CAFE program to estimate the
investment costs for vehicles which would require a full redesign to
comply with a rollover stability standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As explained below, the agency did not calculate all costs
of a standard because it determined that one category of those
costs, the investment costs for vehicles requiring major changes,
would by itself exceed the benefits of a standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAFE submissions include investment cost data for five
models of compact SUVs. Since the specific raw data are
confidential, they cannot be set forth here or otherwise publicly
released. To convert those data into a form in which the original
data can not be determined, the agency divided the per model data by
the applicable manufacturer's estimated average annual production
capacity and then divided by the number of
[[Page 28558]]
years of the vehicle's design cycle life.3 The per-vehicle cost
estimates for these five vehicle design cycle lives were then
averaged to arrive at the estimate used in this analysis. The
individual per-vehicle cost estimates range from $317.37 to $532.37
and the average is $416.77. Since these costs are costs to the
manufacturer, they were adjusted to represent costs to the consumer
by dividing them by 0.75, a standard factor used by the agency in
its vehicle rulemaking in estimating consumer costs from
manufacturer's wholesale costs. The resulting estimated average
consumer cost per vehicle resulting from the redesign of a compact
SUV is $555.69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Since the submissions were made in 1986, 1989, 1993,
and 1994, submissions for years prior to 1994 were adjusted to 1994
dollars using the implicit gross domestic product deflator as
calculated by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency then determined the number of vehicles that would
need vehicle redesigns to comply with a vehicle rollover stability
standard requiring a minimum TTR of 1.05. Based on available data,
the agency believes at least some models would have to be fully
redesigned to achieve TTR increases of more than 0.04, and that
almost all models would have to be fully redesigned to achieve at
TTR increase of 0.06. The agency determined next that 558,756
vehicles would need to be fully redesigned if the threshold for
having to make a full redesign were 0.06 and 603,637 vehicles would
need to be fully redesigned if the threshold were 0.04. Multiplying
these numbers of vehicles by the $555.69 per vehicle investment cost
estimate, the agency estimated that the total investment costs of a
standard requiring a TTR of 1.05 would be $310,495,121 to
$335,435,044.
The agency believes that this range of estimated costs of a
rollover standard requiring compact SUVs to achieve a minimum TTR of
1.05 is understated. As noted earlier, these cost estimates do not
include estimates of the incremental costs of material and labor
involved in the manufacture of the vehicle. Since vehicles would
need significant increases in track width, and attendant increases
in wheelbase, they would be generally larger and heavier. As a
result, the agency concludes that there would be significant
increases in the costs of material and labor involved in the
manufacture of such vehicles. In addition, these cost estimates do
not include any costs for vehicles which could comply with the
standard by changes that are less than a full vehicle redesign.
C. Objections to the Statistical Tools Used by the Agency in
Reaching Its Decision
The petitioners asserted that the agency did not use the
``typical'' statistical measure, the deviance statistic, to judge
the adequacy of the logistic regression models used by the agency in
its analyses of the relationship of TTA to RO/SVA, and the
importance of the vehicle stability metrics. The petitioners also
objected to the agency's use of two statistical measures, R2
and the C-statistic. Finally, the petitioners questioned the
agency's reliance on data from the State of Michigan.
Although the agency did not use the deviance statistic to judge
the adequacy of the logistic regression models, the agency did use a
mathematically equivalent measure, the likelihood statistic (-
2*ln(likelihood)). Using that measure permitted the agency to
compare the effect of adding variables (specifically the vehicle
stability metrics) to the hypothesized models. Detailed discussions
of the agency's analyses are found in the Technical Assessment Paper
(TAP) (Docket 91-68-N01-03) and the Addendum to the Technical
Assessment Paper (Docket 91-68-N03-02) which were placed in NHTSA's
docket. The TAP and the Addendum present analyses using five
measures: the C-statistic, R2, the percentage change in
R2, the likelihood statistic, and the variables' chi-square. It
is true that the deviance statistic was not reported because the
computer software the agency used to conduct this analysis, SAS
Institute's PROC LOGIST, does not include the deviance statistic as
one of the model diagnostics. However, the agency does not believe
that this affects the general conclusions regarding the importance
of the vehicle stability metrics.
NHTSA believes that it may help to explain this issue in non-
statistical terms. The petitioners' argument amounts to a complaint
that the agency described various glasses of water in terms of how
much water is in the glass, instead of in terms of how much water
could be added to the glass. In either case, the capacity of the
glass is the same. If the capacity is known, and if either the
amount of water or the amount of unused capacity is known, the other
amount can be derived.
Similarly, the deviance statistic preferred by the petitioners
describes how much of the variability 4 in the regression model
is left to be explained. The likelihood statistic, which the agency
used, describes how much of the variability in the model is
explained. In either case, the total variability to be explained is
the same. If, as the agency's analysis showed, the addition of TTR
to the model decreased the value of the likelihood statistic, the
deviance statistic would have increased by the same amount. Using
either measure would lead to the same conclusion about the value of
TTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Variability is the difference between what the
statistical model predicts and actual accident records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioners also assert that the use of R2 was
inappropriate because it is not weighted, i.e., it does not reflect
the number of single vehicle accidents for each vehicle make and
model. The petitioners also state that R2 is sensitive to
extreme values. The agency's use of R2 was described fully on
page 5-66 of the TAP. The agency agrees, as explained in the TAP,
that there are limitations to the use of R2. As also explained
in the TAP, R2 was used as an approach to providing the types
of descriptive statistics of model fit with which more people are
familiar, and not to provide a mathematically rigorous assessment of
model fit. The agency's use of R2 was an attempt to make the
explanation of the analysis understandable to a wider audience, and
was not the sole basis of the agency's decision.
The petitioners' assertions of problems with the use of the C-
statistic are not applicable to the C-statistic as used by the
agency. In an attempt to support their assertions, the petitioners
pointed to an example of how the C-statistic can ``misbehave''
presented on page 146 of Hosmer and Lemeshow.5 The agency's use
of the C-statistic is not the same as that in Hosmer and Lemeshow's
example. That example simply uses a classification table with an
arbitrary cut point to determine, e.g., whether an actual rollover
was predicted to be a rollover. The C-statistic employed by NHTSA
measured the concordance between all possible pairs of
FR Doc. 96-14145 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rollover Prevention
observations,
taking one from the actual rollover population and one from the
actual non-rollover population. The C-statistic represents the
percentage of those pairs (which number literally in the millions)
for which the actual rollover had a higher predicted probability
than the actual non-rollover's predicted probability (of rolling
over), minus one-half the number of ties. There is no arbitrary
cutoff point. In addition, the agency's decision was not based on a
single statistical measure. The agency analyzed the data with a
number of statistical measures, all of which pointed to the same
conclusions. Accordingly, the agency remains confident in its
results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 D.W. Hosmer and S. Lemeshow, Applied Logistic
Regression, Wiley Interscience, New York, 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the petitioners' objection to the agency's reliance on
Michigan data for performing the statistical regressions instead of
using the data from the other four states was based on their concern
that the agency did not examine the extent to which the state is
anomalous because of its generally flat topography. The petitioners
stated that this could lead to a lower proportion of rollovers per
single vehicle accident than the other states in the data base. The
agency relied on Michigan data because they included a large number
of available observations, and were based on a low reporting
threshold and more refined accident reporting variables. The agency
did examine whether the rollover rate in this state was anomalous,
and as stated on page 13 of the Addendum, discovered that ``(t)he
rollover rate in Michigan is near the midpoint of the range for all
five states studied.'' The examination of the relative rollover
rates of the five different states was fully explained in the TAP on
pages 59-65.
D. Legal Arguments
The petitioners also addressed the implications of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)
(P.L. 102-240), the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of
1966 (the Safety Act) (P.L. 89-563),6 and the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (P.L. 96-354) for rulemaking concerning a vehicle
stability standard. The petitioners also argue that the decision not
to issue a rollover standard is judicially reviewable.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 After the publication of the termination notice, the Safety
Act was codified in volume 49 of the United States Code. Any cites
to provisions of the Safety Act have been updated to reflect the
codification.
7 The agency agrees with the petitioners that this
termination is ``final agency action'' for the purposes of judicial
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28559]]
The petitioners begin by citing the provision in ISTEA that
required NHTSA to initiate rulemaking concerning a rollover
standard. The petitioners acknowledge that Congress did not mandate
the issuance of a final rule in this area.
Although the petitioners make this concession, it bears
emphasizing how clearly ISTEA and its legislative history
demonstrate that in each instance in which Congress mandated that
the agency initiate vehicle safety rulemaking, it clearly specified
whether the agency had the discretion to decide not to issue a final
rule. In sections 2502-3 of ISTEA, Congress specified that the
agency was to initiate rulemaking regarding five different areas of
vehicle safety performance. With respect to one area, upper interior
head impact protection, Congress specified that rulemaking would be
considered completed only when a final rule was issued. However,
with respect to the other four areas, including rollover, Congress
did not mandate the issuance of a final rule. It expressly provided
that rulemaking on rollover and the other three areas would be
considered completed either when the agency issued a final rule or
when the agency decided, after considering public comments, not to
issue a final rule. The Conference Report on ISTEA emphasized the
discretion which it had reserved to the agency. The conferees said,
with reference to the mandated rulemaking on rollover, ``the
conferees do not predetermine the outcome of [this rulemaking]. The
[NHTSA] is free to conclude the rulemaking in any manner consistent
with the APA and the 1966 Act'' (H. Conf. Rep. 404, 102d Cong., 1st
Sess., at 397 (1991)). Thus, Congress made no judgment in ISTEA
about the ultimate merits of issuing a final rule on rollover.
Instead, Congress provided NHTSA with the latitude to decide that a
rollover standard should not be issued if, in the agency's judgment,
the facts did not warrant such issuance. The agency's conclusion
that such a regulation would not have sufficient benefits to justify
its cost is an ample and proper basis for a decision not to issue a
final rule.
Although the petitioners concede that Congress did not require
the agency to issue a final rule on rollover, they assert that
Congress ``expected the agency to set some form of stability-
enhancing regulation.'' 8 As authority for that assertion, they
cite the legislative history of the Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1995. (P.L. 104-59) The
Senate committee report on that Act contended that NHTSA had
``effectively abandoned efforts at developing a performance standard
for improved rollover protection.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Advocates/IIHS petition, page 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1995 Appropriation Act legislative history is inapposite
here and lacks any possible binding effect. Since that history
pertains to a different statute, it carries no weight in the
interpretation of NHTSA's duties under ISTEA. NHTSA notes further
that the language cited by the petitioners is part of a discussion
expressing concern about the agency's delay in publishing some of
the ISTEA rulemakings. The discussion does not express any
expectation about the substantive outcome of agency rulemaking on
rollover, but does express an expectation that NHTSA will complete
the remaining ISTEA rulemakings expeditiously. Finally, even if the
Senate committee had specifically expressed an expectation
concerning the outcome of the rollover rulemaking, that expectation
would not impose a binding obligation on NHTSA unless Congress
coupled that expectation with a mandate to issue a final rule on
rollover and enacted that mandate into law. See Center for Auto
Safety v. Peck, 751 F.2d 1336, at 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Congress
did not do so. Instead, it expressly decided not to mandate the
issuance of a final rule on that subject.
The petitioners argued that neither the Safety Act nor the
Regulatory Flexibility Act provide any legal grounds for terminating
rulemaking on a vehicle stability standard. The petitioners quoted
statements in the 1994 notice that 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30111(b)(3) would
preclude NHTSA from mandating any stability requirement that is
``incompatible with certain types of vehicles,'' and that a
stability requirement ``could raise concerns'' under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. (59 FR 33254, 33263) They interpreted these
statements as implying that the agency believed it was prohibited
from issuing any standard that might require ``the radical redesign
of the characteristics [of] many, and in some cases all, vehicles of
certain classes * * * and possibly even the elimination of certain
classes of vehicles as they are known today.'' The petitioners
countered with alternative propositions, arguing that NHTSA has
authority to eliminate whole classes of vehicles, and that, even if
NHTSA does not have such authority, it failed to consider a less
demanding regulatory approach such as setting different standards
for separate vehicle types which would not require all vehicles in a
class to be altered. The petitioners argued also that NHTSA cannot
rely on the Regulatory Flexibility Act when the agency did not
prepare any analysis of the impacts of a standard on small entities.
The primary bases for the agency's decision to terminate
rulemaking on a vehicle stability standard are the limited safety
benefits, and the excessive costs and market disruption of such a
standard, regardless of whether that standard applies to all light
duty vehicles or to particular class such as compact SUVs. The 1994
notice discussed the high costs of a standard that specifies a
single performance level which was applicable to all light duty
vehicles and was high enough to require the full redesign of at
least some passenger cars. As explained previously, the agency
concluded that such a standard would have costs and other impacts
which outweighed its benefits. NHTSA similarly concludes that the
costs and other impacts of a standard applicable to compact SUVs
would far outweigh its benefits. Logically, if a standard for the
most rollover-prone light duty vehicles would fail this basis test,
it follows that a standard for other groups of light duty vehicles
would not be justified.
It should be noted that neither 49 U.S.C. 30111(b)(3) nor the
Regulatory Flexibility Act impose an absolute legal bar to a minimum
stability standard. The agency is not foreclosing any possibility of
further rulemaking. As stated above, NHTSA might reinitiate
rulemaking in this area if information becomes available
demonstrating the cost effectiveness of a minimum stability
standard.
However, the Safety Act does place limits on the agency's
rulemaking authority. The agency lacks authority to eliminate entire
classes of vehicles. This interpretation reflects the language of 49
U.S.C. 30111(b)(3) and its legislative history. 49 U.S.C.
30111(b)(3) states:
When prescribing a motor vehicle safety standard under this
chapter, the Secretary shall * * * consider whether a proposed
standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the
particular type of motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment
for which it is prescribed.
The Senate Report accompanying the 1966 Safety Act explained
this provision as follows:
In determining whether any proposed standard is ``appropriate''
for the particular type of motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle
equipment for which it is prescribed, the committee intends that the
[NHTSA] will consider the desirability of affording consumers
continued wide range of choices in the selection of motor vehicles.
Thus it is not intended that standards will be set which will
eliminate or necessarily be the same for small cars or such widely
accepted models as convertibles and sports cars, so long as all
motor vehicles meet basic minimum standards.
(S. Rep. 1301, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., at 6 (1966))
Given this legislative history, NHTSA cannot mandate a stability
requirement so incompatible with the most fundamental
characteristics which define a class of vehicles that implementing
the requirement would cause the elimination of that class. As an
example, the agency noted in the 1994 notice that sport utility
vehicles have features (high ground clearance and narrow track
width) to facilitate off-road use and use on snowy roads. The agency
would not have the authority to set a performance level so stringent
that no vehicles could have these features. This is neither a
radical, nor a new interpretation of the agency's authority. NHTSA
is not suggesting, as the petitioners suggest, that the agency lacks
any authority to issue a standard that requires significant change
to all vehicles in a class. In fact, there are many examples of the
agency using its authority to require changes to all vehicles in a
particular class. Those changes did not, however, eliminate as a
practical matter any recognized classes of vehicles.
Petitioners incorrectly suggested that the agency had a duty
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with either the 1994 notice or
the ANPRM which preceded it. NHTSA did not ``fail'' to prepare any
required report. That Act mandates the preparation of analyses in
connection with notices of proposed rulemaking and final rules only.
NHTSA believes that the Regulatory Flexibility Act was a
relevant concern in
[[Page 28560]]
considering the possibility of proposing a stability standard
applicable to all light duty vehicles because multistage
manufacturers, especially van converters, which are often small
business entities, could be affected by such a standard. NHTSA is
not suggesting that that Act would prevent the issuance of such a
standard or that the concerns about impacts on small manufacturers
were insurmountable regardless of what approach is taken by the
agency in setting the standard. In fact, a standard limited to
compact SUVs would essentially eliminate those impacts because few,
if any, of those vehicles are produced by multistage or other small
manufacturers.
F. NHTSA's Alleged Lack of a Comprehensive Rollover Program
The petitioners characterized NHTSA's identification of seven
separate measures as part of a comprehensive agency plan to address
rollovers as simply ``a chronicle of ongoing or prospective crash
reduction programs that are not aimed uniquely at mitigating
rollover losses.'' The petition went on to complain that some of the
measures ``may never come to fruition,'' and that others have not
been specifically tailored by the agency to address the rollover
problem. The petitioners concluded by stating their belief that
NHTSA's comprehensive program for rollover is really an attempt to
try to persuade the public that the agency is taking action on
rollover safety, notwithstanding the termination of the vehicle
stability rulemaking.
The agency believes that the question of whether the activities
comprising its comprehensive rollover program uniquely address
rollover safety is irrelevant if those activities effectively
address that issue. If NHTSA can take actions, such as issuing a
standard, that significantly reduces the deaths and injuries that
occur in rollover crashes, it should make no difference whether that
reduction is achieved by means that also reduce deaths and injuries
in other types of crashes. The agency agrees that there is a
possibility that some of the regulatory initiatives announced by the
agency as part of its rollover program involve proposals that may
never become final rules. However, this possibility exists with any
regulatory initiative. The agency cannot foretell the nature of the
public comments that it will receive or prejudge the outcome of its
analyses of comments and other information obtained during the
rulemaking process. NHTSA included those initiatives in its rollover
program because preliminary evaluations of those initiatives
indicate that they are promising avenues for addressing rollovers.
The agency will pursue these initiatives expeditiously and
conscientiously. For example, since the 1994 notice was published,
NHTSA has published a final rule to extend the current requirements
for side door latches to rear door latches. (60 FR 50124) This rule
is an attempt to reduce the number of ejections from the rear door
of vehicles, thus reducing injuries and fatalities. Based on data
for years 1988-1992, NHTSA estimates that 147 occupants were fatally
ejected from the rear door of vehicles. Forty two percent of those
fatalities occurred in rollover accidents.
One of the specific initiatives singled out for criticism by
petitioners was the upgrade of Standard 201 to reduce head impact
injuries. The petitioners objected to its inclusion in NHTSA's
comprehensive rollover plan because the proposed compliance impact
speeds ``are often less than those [speeds] responsible for the very
high rate of severe head trauma that is suffered by occupants in
rollover crashes.'' The final rule upgrading Standard No. 201 was
published on August 16, 1995. (60 FR 43031) Even if the petitioners
were correct, the essential fact remains that the final rule will
make substantial reductions in rollover fatalities and injuries. The
agency estimated that 244-334 fatalities and 189-273 serious
injuries would be averted in rollovers as a result of that rule.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
[FR Doc. 96-14145 Filed 5-31-96; 4:38 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14144 Consumer Information Regulations; Vehicle Rollover Stability Label
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28560-28561]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14144]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 91-68; Notice 06]
RIN 2127-AC54
Consumer Information Regulations; Vehicle Rollover Stability
Label
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice reopens the comment period for a notice of
proposed rulemaking published June 28, 1994, regarding a rollover
stability label for light vehicles. The comment period for this
proposed rulemaking action closed on October 21, 1994. Since that time,
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has published a study of
consumer needs for automotive safety information. NHTSA would like
public comments on the NAS study and how that study should be reflected
in NHTSA's rulemaking decisions on requirements for rollover stability
labeling. Accordingly, the agency is reopening the comment period for
an additional 60 days.
DATES: Comments must be received by August 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to Docket No. 91-68; Notice 5 and be
submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
(Docket hours are 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For labeling issues: Stephen R.
Kratzke, Office of Safety Performance Standards, NPS-31, NHTSA, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Kratzke can be reached
by telephone at (202) 366-5203 or by fax at (202) 366-4329.
For general rollover issues: Gayle Dalrymple, Office of Safety
Performance Standards, NPS-20, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Dalrymple can be reached by telephone at
(202) 366-5559 or by fax at (202) 366-4329.
For legal issues: Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel for
Rulemaking, NCC-20, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590. Mr. Wood can be reached by telephone at (202) 366-2992 or by fax
at (202) 366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA currently requires that sport utility
vehicles with a wheelbase of 110 inches or less have a prominent label
advising drivers that these vehicles are less stable than passenger
cars and more likely to roll over during abrupt maneuvers. 49 CFR
575.105. On June 28, 1994 (59 FR 33254), NHTSA published a notice
proposing to supplement the existing requirement for a rollover label
with another label. This proposed additional rollover stability label
would be required on all passenger cars, trucks, and multipurpose
passenger vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 10,000 pounds
or less. The comment period for this proposal was scheduled to close on
August 29, 1994. However, NHTSA extended the comment period so that it
closed October 21, 1994; 59 FR 44121, August 26, 1994. NHTSA received
70 comments to its docket for the proposed additional labeling
requirements.
During this comment period, Congress enacted the Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995 (P.L. 103-
331; September 30, 1994). In that Act, Congress gave NHTSA funds ``for
a study to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) of
motor vehicle safety consumer information needs and the most cost
effective methods of communicating this information.'' The Act directed
NAS to complete its study by March 31, 1996. The Act also included the
following language: ``In order to ensure that the results of the study
are considered in the rulemaking process, the conferees agree that
NHTSA shall not issue a final regulation concerning motor vehicle
safety labeling requirements until after the NAS study is completed.''
As a result of this language, NHTSA deferred
[[Page 28561]]
action on its proposed expanded vehicle rollover stability labeling
until the NAS study was done.
The NAS study was completed and released to the public on March 26,
1996. It is titled ``Shopping for Safety--Providing Consumer Automotive
Safety Information,'' TRB Special Report 248. Copies of this study are
available in NHTSA Docket No. 91-68; Notice 4. NHTSA's Docket Section
can be reached by telephone at (202)366-4949.
NHTSA is reviewing its proposal for rollover stability labeling in
light of this NAS report. To aid the agency in this effort, NHTSA would
like public comments on the NAS study and how that study should be
reflected in NHTSA's rulemaking decisions on requirements for rollover
stability labeling. The agency would also like up-to-date comments on
the issues raised in its 1994 proposal. In light of the NAS study,
NHTSA is also considering improvements to the existing sport utility
vehicle label to enhance the effectiveness of that label. NHTSA
welcomes any views and suggestions commenters may have on this issue.
NHTSA is also interested in comments on whether the agency should
extend its existing label to cover vehicle groups in addition to sport
utility vehicles. It would also be helpful to learn if important
additional information has become available since the original comment
period closed. To obtain comments on these subjects, NHTSA is reopening
the comment period for this rulemaking action for an additional 60
days.
In this reopened comment period, it is not necessary for commenters
to resubmit views and information that have been expressed in previous
comments. NHTSA will consider all of the comments it has already
received.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30117; delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.
Issued on May 31, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-14144 Filed 5-31-96; 4:38 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14124 Detention of Merchandise
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28522-28524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14124]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Customs Service
19 CFR Part 151
RIN 1515-AB75
Detention of Merchandise
AGENCY: Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes amendments to the Customs Regulations
to provide for procedures regarding the detention of merchandise that
is undergoing extended Customs examination. It is intended that the
[[Page 28523]]
Customs Regulations regarding this subject accurately reflect recent
amendments to the underlying statutory authority, enacted as part of
the Customs modernization portion of the North American Free Trade
Agreement Implementation Act.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments (preferably in triplicate) may be addressed
to the Regulations Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S.
Customs Service, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20229.
Comments submitted may be inspected at the Regulations Branch, Office
of Regulations and Rulings, Franklin Court, 1099 14th Street, Suite
4000, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeremy Baskin, Penalties Branch, 202-
482-6950.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 8, 1993, amendments to certain Customs and navigation
laws became effective as the result of the enactment of the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Implementation Act, Public Law
103-182, Title VI of which is the Customs modernization portion
thereof, popularly known as the Customs Modernization Act (Mod Act).
Section 613 of the Mod Act amended the provisions of section 499 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1499), to provide for the
detention of merchandise in any case where Customs is unable, upon
initial examination, to make a determination as to whether that
imported merchandise complies with requirements of the laws of the
United States. Much of the new legislation brought the law into
conformity with existing Customs practice with regard to the
examination and detention of merchandise.
Prior to this amendment, Customs, while having extensive
examination authority, had no specific statutory or regulatory
procedures for detaining merchandise whose admissibility had not yet
been determined. The Mod Act codified Customs current detention
practices. Importers are provided an accelerated method to receive
administrative or judicial review of any decision to exclude.
Customs has five days after merchandise is presented for
examination to determine whether such merchandise should be detained or
can be released. Through this document Customs is proposing that
merchandise shall be considered to be presented for Customs examination
when it is in a condition to be viewed and examined by a Customs
officer. Mere presentation to the examining officer of a cargo van,
container or instrument of international traffic in which the
merchandise to be examined is contained will not be considered to be
presentation of the merchandise for Customs examination for purposes of
starting the five-day period in which the decision to detain or release
must be made. Further, consistent with the provisions of Sec. 151.7 of
the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 151.7), relating to the examination of
merchandise at a place other than the public stores, the importer shall
bear any expense involved in preparing the merchandise for Customs
examination.
Customs is required to issue a written notice of detention to the
importer or other party having an interest in the subject merchandise.
The notice shall advise the importer or other interested party of the
initiation of the detention, the specific reason for same, the
anticipated length of the detention, the nature of the tests or
inquiries to be conducted and the nature of any information which, if
supplied to Customs, may accelerate the disposition of the detention.
The importer or other interested party shall be afforded the
opportunity to remedy the cause for detention and bring the detained
merchandise into compliance within 30 days after issuance of the
notice. After 30 days or such longer period as authorized by law, if
Customs has not made a final determination to release or seize, the
goods are deemed to be excluded. Under Customs proposal, the 30-day
limitation may be extended when the importer or interested party
requests in writing an extension of the detention period, in order to
comply with Customs requirements. In the absence of a written request
for an extension, the importer or interested party may file a protest
as to the exclusion. If, within 30 days after filing of the protest,
Customs fails to act, the importer or interested party may seek
judicial review in the Court of International Trade. The detention/
exclusion period will generally not extend beyond 60 days (unless a
longer period is authorized by law) without the importer or interested
party being afforded judicial review. At any time during the detention
period, the merchandise may be seized and forfeited, if the facts so
warrant. The proposed regulations also permit Customs to allow
exportation of the goods in lieu of seizure with all costs of
exportation being borne by the importer.
The law compels Customs to make timely decisions, provide timely
notices, disclose available testing results and descriptions of
procedures and methodologies that are not proprietary to Customs or the
holder of any copyright or patent, and process any exclusion protests
within a prescribed statutory time period. If a notice to exclude is
not issued within such time period, the burden of proof is on Customs
to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, good cause as to why an
admissibility decision had not been made prior to the time the importer
commenced suit. If Customs makes the decision to exclude, an importer
wishing to challenge the decision shall bear the burden of proof. These
procedures are applicable to those cases where Customs has the
responsibility and authority to determine the admissibility of the
merchandise. They do not apply to those situations where the decision
of admissibility lies with another Federal agency.
This document proposes to amend the regulations to accurately
reflect the statutory changes promulgated by the Mod Act.
Comments
Before adopting the proposed amendments, consideration will be
given to any written comments (preferably in triplicate) that are
timely submitted to Customs. Comments submitted will be available for
public inspection in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5
U.S.C. 552), Sec. 1.4, Treasury Regulations (31 CFR 1.4) and
Sec. 103.11(b), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 103.11(b)), on regular
business days between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the
Regulations Branch, 1099 14th Street, NW., Suite 4000, Washington, DC.
Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866
For the reasons given in the preamble to this document, pursuant to
the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), it is certified that the proposed amendments would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Thus, they are not subject to the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 or 604.
Nor would the proposed rule result in a ``significant regulatory
action'' under E.O. 12866.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The collection of information contained in this notice of proposed
rulemaking has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3507).
[[Page 28524]]
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless the collection of
information displays a valid control number.
The collection of information in this document is in Sec. 151.16
(d) and (f). This information is necessary and will be used to
determine the admissibility of imported merchandise and to otherwise
comply with the requirements of the Mod Act and protect the revenue.
The likely respondents and/or recordkeepers are business or other for-
profit institutions.
Estimated annual reporting and/or recordkeeping burden: 500 hours.
Estimated average annual burden per respondent/recordkeeper: 2
hours.
Estimated number of respondents and/or recordkeepers: 250.
Estimated annual frequency of responses: 1.
Comments on the collection of information should be sent to the
Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer of the
Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Washington, DC 20503. A copy should also be sent to the
Regulations Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs
Service, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20229. Comments
should be submitted within the time frame that comments are due
regarding the substance of the proposal.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the
accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of
the information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden
of the collection of information on respondents, including through the
use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 151
Examination, Sampling and testing of merchandise.
Proposed Amendments to the Regulations
It is proposed to amend part 151, Customs Regulations (19 CFR part
151), as set forth below:
PART 151--EXAMINATION, SAMPLING AND TESTING OF MERCHANDISE
1. The general authority citation for part 151, and the specific
authority for subpart A, would continue to read as follows:
Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Notes 20 and 21,
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1624. Subpart A
also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1499. * * *
2. It is proposed to amend part 151 by adding a new Sec. 151.16 to
read as follows:
Sec. 151.16 Detention of merchandise.
(a) Other agencies not affected. The provisions of this section are
not applicable to detentions effected by Customs on behalf of other
agencies of the U.S. Government.
(b) Decision to detain or release. Within the 5-day period
(excluding weekends and holidays) following the date on which
merchandise is presented for Customs examination, Customs shall decide
whether to release or detain the merchandise. Merchandise which is not
released within such 5-day period shall be considered to be detained
merchandise. For purposes of this section, merchandise shall be
considered to be presented for Customs examination when it is in a
condition to be viewed and examined by a Customs officer. Mere
presentation to the examining officer of a cargo van, container or
instrument of international traffic in which the merchandise to be
examined is contained will not be considered to be presentation of
merchandise for Customs examination for purposes of this section. All
costs relating to the preparation of merchandise for examination shall
be borne by the importer.
(c) Notice of detention. If a decision to detain merchandise is
made, Customs shall issue a notice to the importer or other party
having an interest in such merchandise no later than 5 days (excluding
weekends and holidays) after such decision. The notice shall be
prepared by the Customs officer detaining the merchandise and shall
advise the importer or other interested party of the:
(1) Initiation of the detention;
(2) Specific reason for the detention;
(3) Anticipated length of the detention;
(4) Nature of the tests or inquiries to be conducted; and
(5) Nature of any information which, if supplied to the Customs,
may accelerate the disposition of the detention.
(d) Providing testing results. Upon written request by the importer
or other party having an interest in the detained merchandise, Customs
shall provide copies of the results of any testing conducted on the
merchandise together with a description of the testing procedures and
methodologies used (unless such procedures or methodologies are
proprietary to the holder of a copyright or patent or were developed by
Customs for enforcement 9 purposes). The results and test description
shall be in sufficient detail to permit the duplication and analysis of
the testing and the results.
(e) Seizure and forfeiture; denial of entry or exportation. If
otherwise provided by law, detained merchandise may be seized and
forfeited. In lieu of seizure and forfeiture, Customs may deny entry
and, where not otherwise prohibited by law, permit the merchandise to
be exported with all expenses of exportation being borne by the
importer.
(f) Final decisions; extension of time. A final decision with
respect to detained merchandise will be made within 30 days from the
date the shipment was detained. The 30-day limitation may be extended
when the importer or interested party requests in writing an extension
of the detention period, in order to comply with Customs requirements.
(g) Effect of failure to make a determination. The failure by
Customs to make a final determination with respect to the admissibility
of detained merchandise within 30 days after the merchandise has been
presented for Customs examination, or such longer period if
specifically authorized by law, or such extension of time as allowed by
paragraph (f) of this section, shall be treated as a decision by
Customs to exclude the merchandise for purposes of Sec. 514(a)(4) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1514(a)(4)). Such
decision may be the subject of a protest.
(h) Effect of failure to decide protest. If a protest which is
filed as a result of exclusion of detained merchandise is not allowed
or is denied in whole or in part before the 30th day after the day on
which the protest was filed, it shall be treated as having been denied
on such 30th day.
(i) Burden of proof and decisions of the court. Once an action
respecting a detention is commenced, unless Customs establishes by a
preponderance of the evidence that an admissibility decision has not
been reached for good cause, the court shall grant the appropriate
relief which may include, but is not limited to, an order to cancel the
detention and release the merchandise.
George J. Weise,
Commissioner of Customs.
Approved: April 18, 1996.
John P. Simpson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 96-14124 Filed 6-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14120 Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Oregon
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28531-28541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14120]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[OR-14-1-5535; FRL-5514-3]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Oregon
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA invites public comment on its proposed approval of a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Oregon for
the purpose of bringing about the attainment of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
(PM-10). The implementation plan was submitted by the State to satisfy
certain Federal requirements for an approvable moderate nonattainment
area PM-10 SIP for the Klamath Falls, Oregon, PM-10 nonattainment area.
DATES: Comments must be postmarked on or before July 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Montel Livingston,
SIP Manager, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), EPA, Docket #OR-14-1-
5535, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101.
Copies of the State's request and other information supporting this
proposed action are available for inspection during normal business
hours at the following locations: EPA, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107),
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, and the Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality, 811 SW., Sixth Avenue, Portland, Oregon
97204-1390.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rindy Ramos, EPA, Office of Air
Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101, (206)
553-6510.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
I. Background
A. 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act
The area within the Klamath Falls, Oregon, Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB), was designated nonattainment for PM-10 and classified as
moderate under Sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), upon enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of
1990.1 See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991) and 40 CFR 81.338. The
air quality planning requirements for moderate PM-10 nonattainment
areas are set out in Subparts 1 and 4 of Title I of the Act.2 EPA
has issued a ``General Preamble'' describing EPA's preliminary views on
how EPA intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under Title
I of the Act, including those state submittals containing moderate PM-
10 nonattainment area SIP requirements (see generally 57 FR 13498
(April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992)). Because EPA is
describing its interpretations here only in broad terms, the reader
should refer to the General Preamble for a more detailed discussion of
the interpretations of Title I advanced in this proposed approval and
the supporting rationale. In this rulemaking action for the PM-10 SIP
for the Klamath Falls nonattainment area, EPA's proposed action is
consistent with its interpretations, discussed in the General Preamble,
and takes into consideration the specific factual issues presented in
the SIP. Additional information supporting EPA's action on this
particular area is available for inspection at the address indicated
above. EPA will consider any comments received by the date indicated
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act made significant
changes to the Act. See Pub. L. No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399.
References herein are to the Clean Air Act, as amended (``the
Act''). The Clean Air Act is codified, as amended, in the U.S. Code
at 42 U.S.C., Sections 7401, et seq.
\2\ Subpart 1 contains provisions applicable to nonattainment
areas generally and Subpart 4 contains provisions specifically
applicable to PM-10 nonattainment areas. At times, Subpart 1 and
Subpart 4 overlap or may conflict. EPA has attempted to clarify the
relationship among these provisions in the ``General Preamble'' and,
as appropriate, in today's notice and supporting information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those states containing initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas
(those areas designated nonattainment under Section 107(d)(4)(B)) were
required to submit, among other things, the following provisions by
November 15, 1991:
1. Provisions to assure that Reasonably Available Control Measures
(RACM) (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in
the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)) shall be implemented no
later than December 10, 1993;
2. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no
later than December 31, 1994, or a demonstration that attainment by
that date is impracticable;
3. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years
and which demonstrate Reasonable Further
[[Page 28532]]
Progress (RFP) toward attainment by December 31, 1994; and
4. Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM-10 also apply to major stationary
sources of PM-10 precursors except where the Administrator determines
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which
exceed the NAAQS in the area. See Sections 172(c), 188, and 189 of the
Act.
States with initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas were
required to: 1) submit a permit program for the construction and
operation of new and modified major stationary sources of PM-10 by June
30, 1992 (see Section 189(a)); and 2) submit contingency measures by
November 15, 1993, which were to become effective without further
action by the state or EPA, upon a determination by EPA that the area
has failed to achieve RFP or to attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the
applicable statutory deadline (see Section 172(c)(9) and 57 FR 13543-
13544). Oregon has made submittals in response to both of the above
described requirements. EPA intends to address that submittal
containing the new source review permit program in a separate action.
B. Plan Development
The Klamath Falls Attainment Plan was developed by the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) in consultation with
officials of the City and County of Klamath Falls, the Oregon
Department of Transportation, the Oregon Department of Forestry, and
EPA.
The original Attainment Plan was developed under the CAA prior to
the amendments of 1990 and adopted by the Oregon Environmental Quality
Commission (OEQC) on January 31, 1991. To address the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments, the Plan was initially revised and adopted by the OEQC
on November 8, 1991. This version of the Plan was submitted to EPA on
November 15, 1991. The Plan was revised again and adopted by the OEQC
on August 18, 1995, and submitted to EPA on September 22, 1995.
Therefore, the 1991 and 1995 submittals constitute the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Klamath Falls PM-10 nonattainment
area. This action will address the 1991 and 1995 submittals.
The 1991 Plan was revised for four main reasons. The first was to
update the Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) estimates and emission
inventory. The Oregon Department of Transportation has provided ODEQ
with more accurate information to determine the Plan's base year and
attainment year transportation emissions. These emissions are referred
to as the area's transportation emission budget.
The second reason was to account for additional emission reductions
due to the area's woodstove replacement program that were not accounted
for in the 1991 Plan. The 1991 Plan estimated that 325 woodstoves would
be replaced when, in reality, 743 stoves were replaced.
The third reason was to analyze what effect an increase in an
allowable emission limit has had on the Plan's attainment
demonstration. Since the Plan was first developed in 1991, the state
has revised Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 340, Division 25,
Sections 305, 320, and 325, resulting in an increase in the allowable
emission limit for a Jeld-Wen hardboard plant located in the
nonattainment area. Because attainment of the NAAQS is determined based
on, among other things, allowable point source emissions, the State
needed to review the Plan's attainment demonstration to show that the
increase in allowable emissions would not jeopardize attainment of the
NAAQS.
In fact, the 1991 Plan already accounted for the revised limit.
During development of the 1991 attainment plan, ODEQ was aware that the
hardboard rule emission limit would be revised in the future. In
anticipation of the Division 25 revision (1995), ODEQ estimated that
Jeld-Wen's allowable emissions would increase by 129 pounds per day, up
to a maximum of 24 tons per year. Therefore, ODEQ allocated these extra
emissions to Jeld-Wen's inventoried emissions and used these
``adjusted'' emissions in the Plan's 1994 attainment demonstration.
When the hardboard rule was finalized (1995), the plant's emissions did
not increase by the estimated 24 tons per year. Instead, the revised
emission limit resulted in an allowable increase of only 13.1 tons per
year--10.9 tons per year less than the amount originally allotted in
the 1991 plan (24 tons per year estimated in 1991 minus 13.1 tons per
year finalized in 1995).
The revision to Division 25 was adopted by the OEQC on January 20,
1995, and became state-effective February 17, 1995. It was submitted to
EPA as a revision to the Oregon SIP on August 29, 1995, and will be
reviewed in accordance with the CAA in a separate technical support
document and rulemaking action.
The fourth main reason the 1991 Plan was revised was to use a 1995
dispersion modeling analysis to re-evaluate the effect a Weyerhaeuser
Company facility has on the Plan's attainment demonstration. The 1995
analysis indicates that the facility's impact, at the monitoring site
upon which the Plan's attainment demonstration is based, is not
significant. This analysis is discussed in more detail in the
Evaluation of Attainment Demonstration section of the Technical Support
Document (TSD) that corresponds with this action.
II. This Action
Section 110(k) of the Act sets out provisions governing EPA's
review of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566). In this action, EPA
is proposing to approve the plan revisions submitted to EPA on November
15, 1991, and September 22, 1995. EPA has determined that the
submittals meet all of the applicable requirements of the Act due on
November 15, 1991, with respect to moderate area PM-10 submittals.
Also, as described in Part II.5 below, EPA is proposing to grant the
exclusion from PM-10 control requirements applicable to major
stationary sources of PM-10 precursors. In addition, as described in
Part II.7 below, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision submitted
on November 15, 1991, as meeting the requirement for contingency
measures.
Analysis of State Submission
1. Procedural Background
The Act requires states to observe certain procedural requirements
in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to
EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each implementation
plan submitted by a state must be adopted after reasonable notice and
public hearing.3 Section 110(l) of the Act similarly provides that
each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a state under the
Act must be adopted by such state after reasonable notice and public
hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Also, Section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that plan
provisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of
Section 110(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also must determine whether a submittal is complete and
therefore warrants further EPA review and action (see section 110(k)(1)
and 57 FR 13565). EPA's completeness criteria for SIP submittals are
set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. EPA attempts to make
completeness determinations within 60 days of receiving a submission.
However, a submittal is deemed complete by operation of law if a
completeness determination is not made by EPA six months after receipt
of the submission.
[[Page 28533]]
The State of Oregon held a public hearing on the 1991 Plan on
October 24, 1991. This Plan was submitted to EPA for review on November
15, 1991. The Attainment Plan was subsequently revised in 1995. Public
hearings for this revision were held on June 16 and 20, 1995. This 1995
revision was submitted to EPA on September 22, 1995, as a revision to
the Oregon SIP.
The SIP revisions were reviewed by EPA to determine completeness
shortly after submittal, in accordance with the completeness the
criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. Letters dated May 7,
1992, and February 28, 1996, were forwarded to the Director of ODEQ
indicating the completeness of the submittals and the next steps to be
taken in the review process. In this action EPA is proposing to approve
the State of Oregon's PM-10 SIP submittal for the Klamath Falls PM-10
nonattainment area and invites public comment on the action.
2. Accurate Emissions Inventory
Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires that nonattainment plan
provisions include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of
actual emissions from all sources of relevant pollutants in the
nonattainment area. The emissions inventory should also include a
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of allowable emissions
in the area. See, e.g., Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the Act. Because the
submission of such inventories is necessary to an area's attainment
demonstration (or demonstration that the area cannot practicably
attain), the emissions inventories must be received with the submission
(see 57 FR 13539).
The base year for analysis was 1986 (July 1, 1986, through June 30,
1987). This year was chosen because it represents some of the most
severe air quality episodes the area has experienced. There were forty
days when monitored concentrations of PM-10 were above the 24-hour
standard. In addition to the base year inventory (1986), a design year
inventory (1994 attainment year), and a maintenance demonstration year
inventory (2004) were developed.
The 1986 inventory identified that, on a 24-hour, worst case day,
the major sources of PM-10 emissions are residential wood combustion
(80%), fugitive dust (winter road sanding) (8%), industry (7%),
transportation (4%), and other (1%). Annual emissions for the same
timeframe are residential wood combustion (61%), fugitive dust (10%),
industry (10%), solid waste disposal (which includes residential open
burning, on-site incineration, and agricultural burning) (9%),
transportation (8%), and other (2%).
After implementation of all control measures, ODEQ estimates that
the 24-hour 1994 attainment year inventory will be as follows: industry
(43%), residential woodburning (21%), transportation (18%), fugitive
dust (16%), other (2%), and solid waste disposal (0%). Annual emissions
for the 1994 attainment year are estimated to be: industry (30%),
residential woodburning (24%), fugitive dust (20%), transportation
(17%), other (6%), and solid waste disposal (3%).
The emission inventory was originally reviewed and commented on by
EPA in October 1991, when this SIP revision was in draft form. The
issues raised by EPA during October 1991 were resolved by ODEQ before
the November 15, 1991, SIP revision was submitted.
EPA is proposing to approve the emissions inventory because it
generally appears to be accurate and comprehensive, and provides a
sufficient basis for determining the adequacy of the attainment
demonstration for this area consistent with the requirements of
Sections 172(c)(3) and 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The EPA issued guidance on PM-10 emissions inventories
prior to the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments in the form
of the 1987 PM-10 SIP Development Guideline. The guidance provided
in this document appears to be consistent with the Act. See Section
193 of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. RACM (Including RACT)
As noted, the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas were
required to submit provisions to assure that RACM (including RACT) are
implemented no later than December 10, 1993 (see Sections 172(c)(1) and
189(a)(1)(C)). The General Preamble contains a detailed discussion of
EPA 's interpretation of the RACM (including RACT) requirement (see 57
FR 13539-13545 and 13560-13561).
ODEQ performed a cost and technical analysis of the area's emission
sources to evaluate available control measures needed to bring the area
into attainment with the NAAQS. Results of the emission inventory and
Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) analysis indicated that, overwhelmingly,
emissions from residential wood combustion were the most significant
contributor to exceedances of the NAAQS on a 24-hour, worst case day
basis. This analysis also indicated that industrial emissions were
relatively minor (7%) when compared to residential wood combustion
(80%). ODEQ's analysis further showed that attainment of the NAAQS can
be demonstrated by controlling RACM sources (e.g., wood smoke, road
sanding, and open burning) instead of industrial sources.
It is EPA's policy that RACM (including RACT) does not require the
implementation of all available control measures where an area
demonstrates timely attainment and the implementation of additional
controls would not expedite attainment (see 57 FR 13540-13544). Based
on the available control measures adopted (described below), the SIP
demonstrates attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. The
SIP also demonstrates continued maintenance of the NAAQS between
December 1994 and the year 2004. Accordingly, the attainment
demonstration does not include additional industrial controls beyond
those currently required by the Oregon SIP. However, ODEQ has included
additional point source controls as a contingency measure should the
area not attain the NAAQS by December 31, 1994, or demonstrate RFP. The
Plan's attainment demonstration, contingency measures, and RFP are
discussed in more detail later in this document. In conclusion, EPA
proposes to approve the existing industrial controls as meeting the
RACM (including RACT) requirement.
Attainment of the 24-hour standard is based on the following: (1) A
mandatory woodstove curtailment program, (2) a woodstove certification
program, (3) a woodstove removal program, and (4) reduction in winter
road sanding emissions.
Attainment of the annual standard is based upon: (1) A mandatory
woodstove curtailment program, (2) woodstove certification program, (3)
a reduction in winter road sanding emissions, (4) a woodstove opacity
limitation, and (5) a year-round prohibition on agricultural open
burning. The following table summarizes the anticipated emission
reductions and their associated reduction credits.
[[Page 28534]]
Summary--Attainment Strategies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credit requested Emission reductions
---------------------------------------------------
Number per Tons per
Attainment measures--1994 hour year
24-Hour Annual -------------------------
(24-Hour) (Annual)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Woodstove curtailment....................................... 86% 74% 16,625 938
Woodstove certification..................................... 24% 24% 582 78
Opacity restriction--20%.................................... (*) 5% ........... 12
Woodstove removal........................................... 53% (**) 973 ...........
Winter road sanding......................................... 60% 60% 1,265 17
Agricultural burning........................................ (***) 100% ........... 156
---------------------------------------------------
Total reductions...................................... ........... ........... 19,445 1201
Reductions needed by 12/31/94......................... ........... ........... 18,877 1035
---------------------------------------------------
Excess reductions..................................... ........... ........... 568 166
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Not applicable on a 24-hour worst case day basis: woodstoves would not be in use due to the curtailment
program.
** Not quantified.
*** Not applicable; this activity did not occur during exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS.
A. Mandatory Woodburning Curtailment Program
On July 31, 1991, the Klamath County Board of Commissions adopted
Ordinance No. 63 (codified as Chapter 406), establishing a mandatory
woodburning curtailment program. The City of Klamath Falls adopted
Ordinance No. 6630 on September 16, 1991, which grants Klamath County
the authority to implement the Klamath County Air Quality Program
(Chapter 406) within the city limits of Klamath Falls. The program
became fully implemented within the nonattainment area on November 1,
1991. Prior to the mandatory program, a voluntary program had been
operated by Klamath County since 1988. The following is a brief
discussion of the program's key elements. For a detailed analysis and
discussion, the reader is referred to the TSD that corresponds with
this action.
Daily wood heating advisories are disseminated by the County via
local television and radio stations. The County also maintains a
burning advisory telephone system which, during the 1990/1991
woodheating season, answered 122,000 public calls. An additional 5,000
calls were handled by the Klamath County Air Quality staff. During the
1992/1993 woodheating season, there were 160,311 public calls. The
increase in calls between the two seasons seems to indicate an increase
in public awareness of the wood heating advisory and of the purpose of
the curtailment program.
For a specified period of time, Klamath County Air Quality could
grant an exemption from complying with the curtailment program during
poor air quality periods provided that the solid fuel-fired heating
appliance is the sole source of heat for a specific residence. However,
after December 31, 1992, it became unlawful for a solid fuel-fired
heating appliance to be the sole source of heat in any nonowner
(tenant-occupied) dwelling. Exemptions to this phaseout can be granted
to landlords due to low income. This sole source, low income, nonowner-
occupied exemption terminates December 31, 1997. All sole source, low
income, nonowner-occupied dwellings must have a secondary source of
heat by that time. In addition, all sole source heat households, except
those that are tenant-occupied, had until December 31, 1995, to install
a secondary heat source. No exemptions will be issued after this date
unless the household (person) qualifies under a low income exemption.
A person who demonstrates economic need by certifying through proof
that his/her income is less than 1.2 times the low income guidelines
established by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development, may be granted a low income exemption from installing a
secondary form of heat to be used during yellow and red curtailment
days. After December 31, 1995, no further exemptions will be granted.
Woodburning curtailment forecasts are made twice daily at 7 am and
4 pm during the woodheating season (October 1 through March 31). The
curtailment calls are based on a forecast algorithm using: National
Weather Service upper air and barometric pressure data; forecasts of
synoptic meteorology; surface temperatures; and wind speed and
direction. Nephelometer measurements of hourly light scattering and
local observations of air quality conditions are also used. (Appendix 7
of ODEQ's Attainment Plan contains a more detailed discussion).
Woodburning curtailment advisories are issued at three levels. A
green advisory is issued when NAAQS exceedances are unlikely.
Woodburning is unrestricted during these periods but the public is
asked to follow good woodburning practices. Green advisories are issued
when PM-10 concentrations are forecast to not exceed 80 g/
m3 for a 24-hour average.
A yellow advisory is issued when PM-10 concentrations are forecast
to exceed or are exceeding 81 g/m3 for a 24-hour average.
The public is asked to curtail all unnecessary woodburning. However,
permitted pellet stoves and certified stoves may be used; and dwellings
granted exemptions described above may burn.
A red advisory is issued when PM-10 concentrations are forecast to
exceed or are exceeding 150 g/m3 for a 24-hour average.
No person can operate any solid fuel-fired heating appliance, except
for a permitted pellet stove, during a red advisory, unless an
exemption has been granted by the County.
In addition, during a yellow or red advisory, all open burning,
including burn barrels/incineration is prohibited unless a variance has
been approved by Klamath County Air Quality.
The Klamath Falls curtailment program includes a surveillance and
enforcement element. A standard operating procedure and evaluation
measure has been developed to be used during yellow and red advisories.
During surveillance and effectiveness evaluations, infra-red detectors
are used at night to detect ``hot'' chimneys. Visible emission readings
are taken during the daytime hours.
[[Page 28535]]
When Klamath County Air Quality inspectors have visually observed
that a person has violated the Klamath County Clean Air Ordinance,
Ordinance Number 63, a Notice and Order setting forth the alleged
violation is required to be issued. The Notice will require the alleged
violator to take corrective action, such as to cease and desist from
operating the noncomplying appliance.
The violator is to notify Klamath County Air Quality that corrective
action has been taken.
In cases when a person has not complied with the Notice and Order,
the County is required to issue a Compliance Order and/or Summons and
Complaint with the Court of competent jurisdiction for violation of the
ordinance. The County may also obtain injunctive relief, abate the
nuisance, or otherwise correct the violation of the ordinance through
the Court.
Continued operation of a solid-fuel fired device without an
exemption, or performing open burning following the declaration of a
red or yellow advisory, will result in enforcement action. The
penalties which may be imposed upon conviction based on Summons and
Complaint for a violation of any provision of Chapter 406.100 (General
Rules and Regulations) and Chapter 406.150 (Pollution Prohibitions),
excluding Prohibited Materials Burning, of the ordinance are:
(1) First offense violators may receive a warning and be fined $25.
(2) Second offense violators shall be fined $100.
(3) Subsequent offense violators shall be fined a maximum of $250
per occurrence.
The County has conducted several curtailment surveys since the
1989/1990 woodheating season. During this voluntary compliance period
(the program was not a mandatory one until 1991), red advisory
nighttime compliance rates ranged from about 37% to 50% when compared
to the number of woodstoves being used during a green advisory
nighttime baseline. The green advisory nighttime baseline was also
established during the 1989/1990 woodheating season.
For the January 1993 and December 1993 to January 1994 periods,
five red advisory day surveys were conducted in the morning hours. When
compared to the 1989/1990 green advisory baseline, compliance rates for
the five red advisory days were about 95%. This comparison may not be
entirely applicable given the nighttime baseline and the morning
compliance survey. However, it does provide some indication of overall
compliance during red curtailment days.
During the 1994/1995 winter season, only two red advisory calls
were made. An evening red advisory occurred on November 22, 1994, and a
daytime red advisory occurred on January 17, 1995. During these two
events, the County did not conduct surveys. However, both red
advisories were preceded by yellow advisories; therefore, survey data
collected during the yellow advisories can give an indication of
compliance on red advisory nights. The data show compliance with the
yellow advisories, ranging from 84% to 97%.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This discussion is based on information in a memorandum from
David Collier, ODEQ, to Rindy Ramos, EPA Region 10, dated March 4,
1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering the above program elements, survey results, and the
phasing out of the sole source and low income exemptions, EPA believes
that the 86% credit requested by ODEQ on a 24-hour basis is achievable
and is being achieved and, therefore, accepts the credit claimed. EPA
also accepts ODEQ's annual credit of 74%. In acceptance of the credits,
EPA considered the fact that the nonattainment area has not had a
monitored exceedance of the 24-hour standard since January 1991, and
the area has not exceeded the annual standard since 1989.
B. Woodstove Certification
In 1983, the Oregon Legislature directed the ODEQ to require that
all new woodstoves sold in the State be certified through laboratory
testing. As a result, stoves sold after July 1986 were required to emit
particles at a rate at least 50% less than conventional woodstoves.
After July 1988, new woodstoves were required to have a particle
emission rate at least 70% less than conventional woodstoves.
The OEQC adopted on March 2, 1990, revisions to Oregon's Woodstove
Certification Program, making it consistent with EPA's New Source
Performance Standard (NSPS) 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart AAA. Currently, all
woodstoves sold in the State of Oregon must be both ODEQ and EPA-
certified. The SIP revision was approved by EPA as part of the Oregon
SIP on June 9, 1992 (see 57 FR 24373).
ODEQ estimates that the woodstove certification program provides a
24% credit against baseline 1986 woodstove emissions by 1994.6
Oregon has historically pursued an aggressive woodstove certification
program. Oregon was the first state in the Nation to adopt, implement,
and enforce a program of this type (1984). EPA promulgated the NSPS on
February 26, 1988, modeled after Oregon's program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This estimate uses a 1986 baseline inventory and assumes or
relies on: 1) a 1% annual growth in firewood consumed by woodstoves;
2) information from building permit authorities in Klamath Falls
that essentially all permitted installations are certified stoves,
and that about 20% of these are pellet stoves; 3) a useful stove
life of 20 years; 4) the fact that typical certified woodstoves and
pellet stoves respectively emit 50% and 90% less PM-10 than a
conventional stove. EPA believes this is an accurate portrayal of
the situation in Klamath Falls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The projected emission reductions in conjunction with a statewide
ban (OAR 340-34-010) on the sale of used uncertified stoves, a ban on
the installation of used uncertified stoves, and Oregon's model
woodstove certification program supports EPA's acceptance of Oregon's
woodstove certification credit claim.
C. Woodstove Removal and Home Weatherization Program
Between May 1990 and December 1993 the City and County of Klamath
Falls received funds totalling approximately $1.9 million from the
State of Oregon Community Block Grant funds for a home weatherization
and woodstove replacement program. Woodstoves in 743 low income, sole
source homes have been replaced by natural gas (90%), oil (6%),
electric (2%), certified stove (1%), and propane (1%) heating sources.
These funds were administered under Klamath Falls's Particulate Urban
Resources Effort (PURE) project. The average cost of converting and
weatherizing each home was $2,200.
For the 1994 attainment year, ODEQ estimates that total PM-10
emissions from low income, sole source homes have been reduced by 973
pounds per day, which equates to 67 tons per year. ODEQ therefore
requests a 53% credit for this strategy (973 lbs per day 1994
controlled/1843 lbs per day 1994 uncontrolled). This 53% credit is
calculated for replacing uncertified woodstoves as follows: Electric
heat (100% PM-10 reduction), natural gas (99% PM-10 reduction), propane
(99% PM-10 emission reduction), oil (99% PM-10 reduction), and
certified woodstoves (50% PM-10 reduction). Because of the demonstrated
success of the program, EPA proposes to accept the 53% credit requested
by ODEQ.
D. Winter Road Sanding Control Program
Winter road sanding has been shown to adversely affect the PM-10
levels throughout the Western United States, including Klamath Falls,
in areas that experience measurable snowfall. The silt-laden, friable
sand is placed on roads by local and state highway
[[Page 28536]]
departments to provide better traction on snow and ice. However, once
the snow has melted and the roads have dried out, the remaining dry,
silty road sand is easily resuspended by moving vehicular traffic.
In Klamath Falls, winter road sanding emissions peak during periods
when several inches of snow cover the area. During these periods, as
much as 70 cubic yards per day of aggregate are spread on roads within
the UGB. Because snow covers the roadways and landscape, it is ODEQ's
position that essentially all of the fugitive dust emissions (during
this time period) are assumed to originate from road sanding. Chemical
analysis of PM-10 samples collected on days exceeding the 24-hour NAAQS
indicated that 9% of the PM-10 mass was soil dust. Road sanding
emissions were therefore estimated to be of similar magnitude in the
emission inventory, or approximately 1,900 pounds per day during the 27
days per year when road sanding occurs. The worst case day emission
estimates provide the basis for the annual emission estimates for road
sanding.
Sanding materials used in the Klamath Falls area are obtained from
a gravel pit located near Merrill, Oregon, where volcanic cinders, pea
gravel, silts, and clays have been deposited. Nearly all of the
aggregate used within the UGB is applied by the Oregon Department of
Transportation Highway Division, mostly on US 97, South Sixth Street,
Alameda Bypass, and the South Side Bypass. The City, County, and State
all maintain sections of Washburn Way and other streets in south
suburban Klamath Falls. The City maintains streets within the Central
Business District.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ State Implementation Plan for PM-10 in Klamath Falls,
October 1991, Section 12.3.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon requests a 60% credit for its winter road sanding control
strategy. The 60% credit is based on the Highway Division's commitment
to reduce winter road sanding by 60% through: (1) Replacement of
aggregate with a de-icing material; (2) a reduction in the amount of
aggregate applied; and (3) rapid cleanup using street washing or
sweeping of road sanding materials used on major thoroughfares. During
worst case winter days, ODEQ estimates that this strategy will reduce
emissions by 1,265 pounds per day and, on an annual basis, it will
reduce emissions by 17 tons per year. EPA proposes to accept ODEQ's
projection that the road sanding measures will reduce PM-10 emissions
from winter road sanding by 60%. See Appendix 4 of the SIP for
additional information.
E. 20% Woodstove Opacity Limitation
The Klamath County woodsmoke control ordinance (No. 63) provides
for a year-round 20% woodstove plume opacity limitation. Visible
emissions are not to exceed 20% opacity for a period or periods
aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour period. The
ordinance does, however, grant an exemption during a fire's start-up
period. Visible emission are exempt during a fifteen minute start-up
period provided they do not exceed 40% opacity. If the opacity is
greater than 40% during start-up, then the stove is in violation of the
ordinance.
The 5% emission reduction credit requested by ODEQ is reasonable
and is consistent with the recommendations in EPA's Guidance Document
for Residential Wood Combustion Emission Control Measures and,
therefore, EPA proposes to approve it.
F. Open Burning Restriction
Chapter 406 of the Klamath County Clean Air Ordinance regulates
residential open burning, including burn barrels/incinerators and
agricultural burning. Residential open burning, including burn barrels/
incinerators, is prohibited during red and yellow advisories within
Klamath County unless a variance has been approved by Klamath County.
ODEQ does not request any credit for this strategy.
Agricultural open burning within the nonattainment area and within
one-fourth mile of the nonattainment area boundary is prohibited
throughout the year. ODEQ estimates that the elimination of
agricultural burning will reduce PM-10 emissions by 156 tons on an
annual basis and requests a 100% emission reduction credit for
elimination of this activity. EPA believes ODEQ's claim is reasonable
and, therefore, proposes to approve this control measure.
G. Other Sources
Where sources of PM-10 contribute insignificantly to the PM-10
problem in the area, EPA's policy is that it would be unreasonable and
would not constitute RACM to require the sources to implement
potentially available control measures (see 57 FR at 13540). The State
does, however, have in place the following measures which will further
reduce PM-10 emissions. The State does not request any emission
reduction credits for the measures.
1. Fugitive Dust--Paved and Unpaved Roads
ODEQ determined through their analysis of the nonattainment area,
on a 24-hour, worst case day basis, that PM-10 emissions of re-
entrained road dust from paved and unpaved roads are negligible due to
snow cover. The application of road sanding materials is the main
source of road traffic-related emissions. On an annual basis, emissions
from paved and unpaved roads account for 163 tons, or approximately 8%
of the 1986 annual emission inventory.
Even though reducing emissions from this source category is not
needed to attain the standard, the State does regulate this category.
Referencing the suggested available fugitive dust control measures
listed in Appendix C1 (57 FR 18072), rules requiring measures 1, 2, 3,
4, 10, 11, and 12 are currently part of the Oregon SIP and are
contained in OAR 340, Division 21. These rules are enforced under OAR
340-21-060. The rules were previously approved by EPA and are contained
in the State of Oregon Air Quality Control Program; Volume 2; The
Federal Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan (and other State
Regulations).
2. Prescribed Burning
Historically, PM-10 emissions from prescribed burning and slash
burning have not significantly impacted on the nonattainment area on
either a 24-hour basis (zero emissions) or on an annual basis (zero
emissions); however, this activity does have the potential to
significantly impact on the area.
To address this issue, a voluntary smoke management program was
developed and implemented. The provisions of this program are
coordinated by the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODOF) which provides
daily smoke management forecasts and advisories for Klamath County. A
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed in 1991 by and between the
Klamath-Lake District of ODOF, Cavenham Forest Industries (Bend,
Oregon), Modoc Lumber Company, Thomas Lumber Company, Weyerhaeuser
Company (Klamath Falls), Whiskey Creek Timber Company, Winema National
Forest, Fremont National Forest, and the Bureau of Land Management
(Lakeview District). The MOU provides that the parties will abide by
the elements of the smoke management plan and is based on a cooperative
operations plan that was in effect January 10, 1990, between the above
parties.
EPA has reviewed ODEQ's submittals and associated documentation and
concluded that they adequately justify the control measures to be
implemented. Because all control measures were implemented by the
[[Page 28537]]
CAA RACM implementation date of December 10, 1993, implementation of
the Klamath Falls PM-10 nonattainment plan control strategies has
resulted in meeting the requirement of the Act that the attainment of
the PM-10 NAAQS be achieved as expeditiously as practicable and no
later than December 31, 1994.
4. Demonstration
As noted, the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas must
submit a demonstration (including air quality modeling) showing that
the plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable
but no later than December 31, 1994 (see Section 189(a)(1)(B) of the
Act). The General Preamble sets out EPA's guidance on the use of
modeling for moderate area attainment demonstrations (see 57 FR 13539).
Alternatively, the State must show attainment by December 31, 1994, or
that attainment is impracticable. The 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS is 150
micrograms/cubic meter (g/m3), and the standard is
attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-
hour average concentration above 150 g/m3 is equal to or
less than one (see 40 CFR section 50.6). The annual PM-10 NAAQS is 50
g/m/3, and the standard is attained when the expected
annual arithmetic mean concentration is less than or equal to 50
g/m3 (id.).
Generally, EPA recommends that attainment be demonstrated according
to the PM-10 SIP Development Guideline (June 1987), which presents
three methods. Federal regulations require demonstration of attainment
``by means of a proportional model or dispersion model or other
procedure which is shown to be adequate and appropriate for such
purposes'' (40 CFR Section 51.112). The preferred method is the use of
both dispersion and receptor modeling in combination. The regulation
and the guideline also allows the use of dispersion modeling alone, or
the use of two receptor models in combination with proportional
rollback.
As indicated in the General Preamble, 57 FR at 13539, EPA has
developed a supplemental attainment demonstration policy for initial
PM-10 nonattainment areas such as Klamath Falls. The Preamble provides
additional flexibility in meeting the PM-10 attainment demonstration
requirements. An earlier April 2, 1991, memorandum titled, ``PM-10
Moderate Area SIP Guidance: Final Staff Work Product,'' contained
``Attachment 5'' describing the same policy. The policy explains that
in certain circumstances a modified attainment demonstration may be
appropriate on a case-by-case basis. It may be reasonable to accept a
modified attainment demonstration in cases where ``time constraints,
inadequate resources, inadequate data bases, lack of a model for some
unique situations, and other unavoidable circumstances would leave an
area unable to submit an attainment demonstration'' by November 15,
1991. The policy further explains that its application is reserved for
those initial PM-10 nonattainment areas that have ``completed the
technical analysis * * * and made a good-faith effort to submit a final
SIP by their November 15, 1991, due date.''
During development of the Klamath Falls initial moderate area PM-10
attainment plan, ODEQ did not use dispersion modeling to estimate the
design values or in the attainment and maintenance demonstrations. This
was due to: (1) the lack of adequate historical meteorological data,
(2) the late receipt in the development process of spatially resolved
emission inventory data needed for modeling, (3) the intense and
extremely shallow inversions and calm winds (typical wind speeds during
exceedances days are less than one meter per second) are not conducive
to dispersion modeling (EPA does not have and has not developed an
approved guideline model for conditions of this type), and (4) the fact
that on winter days, when worst case air quality conditions occur, the
airshed is heavily dominated by emissions from woodstoves, fireplaces,
and road sanding.
ODEQ conducted an attainment demonstration based upon receptor
modeling proportional roll-back calculations to estimate the emission
reductions required in 1994 to achieve the NAAQS. Emission inventory
estimates were reconciled with Chemical Mass Balance (version 7.0)
receptor modeling. Results from two emission estimation methods,
emission inventory and receptor modeling, were in agreement that
woodsmoke and soil dust are the major sources of emissions on
exceedance days. According to the emission inventory, woodsmoke equals
80% and soil dust equals 8% of total PM-10 particulate. According to
the CMB analysis, woodsmoke equals 82% and soil dust equals 10.9% of
particulate.
EPA guidance on CMB modeling specifies that the apportionment
should account for at least 80% of the measured aerosol mass. ODEQ's
analysis accounted for 96% of the mass.
ODEQ determined the 1994 24-hour, worst case day design value
(without controls) to be 600 g/m3 based on monitored data
utilizing EPA's graphical procedure, including adjustments for emission
growth. The 1994 annual design value (without controls) was determined
to be 82, g/m3 calculated as an arithmetic average. Monitored
concentrations for the 3-year period July 1, 1986, through June 30,
1989, were used in both cases. Appendix 1 of the SIP lists the 24-hour
concentrations used to determine the design values, and Appendix 2
provides detailed information on the design value calculations,
including which concentrations were used when data from different
methods were collected on the same day.
The Attainment Plan has been criticized for not requiring
implementation of point source emission controls on a Weyerhaeuser
facility located outside, but near, the nonattainment area. As
discussed in the Area Designation History section of the Technical
Support Document (TSD), it was ODEQ's position, during establishment of
the Klamath Falls PM-10 Group I Areas of Concern, that the Weyerhaeuser
facility did not significantly impact on the Peterson School ambient
monitoring site during exceedance days (significant is defined as 5
g/m3). ODEQ took the same position, when by operation of
law, the Klamath Falls Group I area (as defined by the UGB), was
designated as a moderate nonattainment area on November 15, 1990. The
classification of the Klamath Falls area as a Group I area and, its
subsequent designation as a nonattainment area, was based on technical
information available at that time. This information did not indicate
that Weyerhaeuser significantly impacted on the Peterson School
monitoring site. To support ODEQ's position, ODEQ committed to
requiring Weyerhaeuser to dispersion model the plant's impact. A
preliminary 1992 modeling analysis was performed and followed by a
definitive 1995 modeling analysis. The model used was the EPA point
source guideline model-ISCST2. [ISCST3 was not yet available when the
modeling was performed.]
The 1995 analysis indicates that on exceedance days, the
Weyerhaeuser facility does not have a significant impact at the
Peterson School site, which is the site on which attainment with the
NAAQS is determined.8 The source's modeled 1995 allowable
emissions are drastically lower than 1992 allowable emissions. This is
due to, among other things, the facility forfeiting unassigned plant
site emission limits and replacing five hog fuel-fired
[[Page 28538]]
boilers with natural gas fired boilers. Furthermore, Weyerhaeuser's Air
Contaminant Discharge Permit, issued on November 20, 1995, reflects an
allowable pounds per hour limit of 111 (down from the previously
permitted limit of 152 pounds per hour). The analysis, and subsequent
permit, account for emission credits of 11.79 pounds per hour (down
from the previous permitted level of 332 pounds per hour). Forfeiting
of unassigned emission credits reduces allowable emissions alone by
over 600 tons per year to a 1995 permitted level of 371 tons.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ This statement is based on information in a letter from
David Collier, ODEQ, to Rindy Ramos, EPA Region 10, dated February
6, 1996.
\9\ EPA is aware, however, that a recent (1995) modeling
analysis that looked at impacts from the Weyerhaeuser facility in
the area outside of the UGB indicates that the facility may be
causing an exceedance of the 24-hour NAAQS at an unmonitored site.
EPA is working with the State to resolve this distinct and separate
issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the previously discussed design values, ODEQ estimates
that 1994 worst case day emissions must be reduced by 75.6%, which
equals 18,877 pounds per day. Thus, percent reduction required=((1994
design value-24-hour standard)/(1994 design value-background) x 100);
or, [((60-1350 g/m3)/(600-7 g/
m3)] x 100=75.6%. Annual emissions for the projected 1994
attainment year must be reduced by 47%, which equals 1035 tons. Percent
reduction required=[((82-50 g/m3)/(82-15 g/
m3)] x 100=47%.
ODEQ estimates that 1994 24-hour, worst case day emissions must be
reduced by 18,877 pounds to attain the 24-hour NAAQS, and annual
emissions must be reduced by 1035 tons in order to attain the annual
NAAQS. The previously discussed control measures are designed to reduce
projected 1994 worst case day emissions by 19,445 pounds (568 pounds
beyond the level needed for attainment and annual emissions by 1,201
tons (166 tons beyond the level needed for attainment). According to
the principle of proportional roll-back modeling, a reduction of 19,445
pounds from the Klamath Falls PM-10 emission sources will result in a
1994 worst case day ambient concentration of 136.5 g/m3.
An annual reduction of 1,201 tons will result in an annual
concentration of 44.9 g/m3. Both values demonstrate
attainment with their respective standards.
EPA proposes to approve the attainment demonstration. It is EPA's
opinion that the appropriate air quality model was used and all
significant emission sources and impacts were considered. The
Attainment Plan demonstrates attainment by December 31, 1994. EPA has
also considered the fact that, based on monitored air quality for the
calendar years 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995, the area has, in fact,
attained both the 24-hour and annual NAAQS. As to the adequacy of the
nonattainment area boundary, the UGB was established as the
nonattainment area boundary upon passage of the CAAA of 1990 and,
therefore, the existing nonattainment area boundary is defined in the
CAA itself.
5. PM-10 Precursors
The control requirements which are applicable to major stationary
sources of PM-10 also apply to major stationary sources of PM-10
precursors, unless EPA determines such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM-10 levels in excess of the NAAQS in that area (see
Section 189(e) of the Act). The General Preamble contains guidance
addressing how EPA intends to implement Section 189(e) (see 57 FR
13539-13542).
As previously discussed, ODEQ's technical analysis of candidate
control measures indicated that emissions from industrial point sources
had substantially less of an impact on the 24-hour standard than
residential wood combustion (7% vs. 80%). Previous violations of the
24-hour standard occurred during periods of extensive poor ventilation
(stagnation conditions) and cold temperatures. In addition, the CMB
analysis indicates that secondary particulate is not a major component
of the area's PM-10 emissions. This analysis identified that, on an
average winter exceedance day, 3.2% of the mass (10.7 g/
m3) comprises secondary particulate. On an annual basis, 1.9% of
the mass (1.5 g/m3) comprises secondary particulate.
Therefore, EPA believes that sources of PM-10 precursors do not
contribute significantly to PM-10 levels in excess of the NAAQS, and
hereby grants the exclusion from control requirements authorized under
Section 189(e) for major stationary sources of PM-10 precursors.
Note that, while EPA is making a general finding for the Klamath
Falls area about precursor contribution to PM-10 NAAQS exceedances,
this finding is based on the current character of the area including,
for example, the existing mix of sources in the area. It is possible,
therefore, that future growth could change the significance of
precursors in the area.
6. Quantitative Milestones and Reasonable Further Progress
The PM-10 nonattainment area plan revisions demonstrating
attainment must contain quantitative milestones which are to be
achieved every three years until the area is redesignated attainment
and which demonstrates RFP, as defined in Section 171(1), toward
attainment by December 31, 1994 (see Section 189(c) of the CAA).
While Section 189(c) plainly provides that quantitative milestones
are to be achieved until an area is redesignated attainment, it is
silent in indicating the starting point for counting the first 3-year
period or how many milestones must be initially addressed. In the
General Preamble, EPA addressed the statutory gap in the starting point
for counting the 3-year milestone, indicating that it would begin from
the due date for the applicable implementation plan revision containing
the control measures for the area (i.e., November 15, 1991, for initial
moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas) (see 57 FR 13539).
As to the number of milestones, EPA believes that at least two
milestones must be initially addressed. Thus, the submittal to address
the SIP revisions due on November 15, 1991, for the initial moderate
PM-10 nonattainment areas must demonstrate that two milestones will be
achieved (First milestone: November 15, 1991, through November 15,
1994; Second milestone: November 15, 1994, through November 15, 1997).
For the initial PM-10 nonattainment areas that demonstrate
attainment, the emissions reduction progress made between the SIP
submittal (due date of November 15, 1991) and the attainment date of
December 31, 1994 (46 days beyond the November 15, 1994, milestone
date) will satisfy the first quantitative milestone (see 57 FR 13539).
For areas that demonstrate timely attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS, the
milestones beyond the attainment achievement date should, at a minimum,
provide for continued maintenance of the standards.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Section 189(c) of the Act provides that quantitative
milestones are to be achieved ``until the area is redesignated
attainment.'' However, this endpoint for quantitative milestones is
speculative because redesignation of an area as attainment is
contingent upon several factors and future events. Therefore, EPA
believes it is reasonable for states to initially address at least
the first two milestones. Addressing two milestones will ensure that
the state continues to maintain the NAAQS beyond the attainment date
for at least some period during which an area could be redesignated
attainment. However, in all instances, additional milestones must be
addressed if an area is not redesignated attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SIP demonstrates attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS by December 31,
1994, and maintenance of the NAAQS through the year 2004, satisfying
five milestones. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve the submittal as
meeting the
[[Page 28539]]
quantitative milestone requirement currently due. Finally, once a
milestone has passed, the State will have to demonstrate that the
milestone was, in fact, achieved for the Klamath Falls area as provided
in Section 189(c)(2) of the Act.
7. Enforceability Issues
All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by
ODEQ and EPA (See Sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR 13556).
EPA criteria addressing the enforceability of SIPs and SIP revisions
were stated in a September 23, 1987, memorandum (with attachments) from
J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, et al.
(see 57 FR 13541). Nonattainment area plan provisions must also contain
a program that provides for enforcement of the control measures and
other elements in the SIP (see section 110(a)(2)(C)).
The particular control measures contained in the SIP were addressed
above under the section headed ``RACM (including RACT).'' These control
measures apply to the types of activities identified in that
discussion, including woodstoves and other wood burning activities. The
SIP provides that the control measures apply throughout the entire
nonattainment area.
During EPA's review of a SIP revision involving Oregon's statutory
authority, a problem was detected which affected the enforceability of
point source permit limitations. Even though the SIP does not contain
additional point source controls to attain the standard, existing and
federally approved point source emission limitations are relied upon to
maintain and demonstrate attainment with the PM-10 NAAQS.
EPA determined that, because the five-day advance notice provision
required by ORS.126(1) (1991) bars civil penalties from being imposed
for certain permit violations, ORS 468 fails to provide the adequate
enforcement authority the State must demonstrate to obtain SIP
approval, as specified in Section 110 of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR
51.230. Accordingly, the requirement to provide such notice would
preclude federal approval of a PM-10 nonattainment area SIP revision.
EPA notified Oregon of the deficiency. To correct the problem, the
Governor of Oregon signed into law new legislation amending ORS 468.126
on September 3, 1993. This amendment added paragraph 468.126(2)(e)
which provides that the five-day advance notice required by ORS
468.126(1) does not apply if the notice requirement will disqualify the
State's program from federal approval or delegation. ODEQ responded to
EPA's understanding of the application of 468.126(2)(e) and agreed
that, if federal statutory requirements preclude the use of the five-
day advance notice provision, no advance notice will be required for
violations of SIP requirements contained in permits.
In regard to a separate enforceability issue, the following is a
summary of the city, county, and interagency commitments which EPA
proposes to approve as part of the SIP as either a required control
measure or SIP strengthening measure. The content of the two ordinances
and their relationship to the SIP control strategies are discussed in
more detail in the TSD.
City and County Ordinances
A. City of Klamath Falls--Ordinance No. 6630. The ordinance grants
Klamath County the authority to implement the Klamath County Air
Quality Program (Chapter 406) within the city limits of Klamath Falls
(authority to regulate--control measure).
B. Klamath County Clean Air Ordinance No. 63. This ordinance adds
Chapter 406 to the Klamath County Code and is entitled the ``Klamath
County Clean Air Ordinance.'' The provisions in Chapter 406 establish
the mandatory air quality program, area boundaries, and enforcement
controls (control measure).
C. Klamath County Air Quality Program--Resolution 89-116. This
resolution recognizes the need for establishing control strategies
(measures) to reduce PM-10 concentrations in Klamath County (SIP
strengthening measure).
Interagency Commitments
A. Winter Road Sanding Program, Oregon Department of Transportation
Highway Division--Memorandum of Understanding. This sets forth the
Highway Department's commitment to: (1) replace cinder sanding material
with a liquid de-icing agent, (2) minimize street sanding application
rates consistent with traffic safety objectives, (3) rapid cleanup of
sanding materials, and (4) ``review construction contract Standard
Specifications and Project Provisions for compatibility with local
ordinances concerning trackout. Tracking mud onto a highway is a
citable offense (control measure).
B. Voluntary Smoke Management Plans. EPA is proposing to approve
both of the Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) contained in Appendix 4
of the SIP as SIP strengthening measures. One MOU is between members of
Klamath County's forestry community. The other MOU is between the
Klamath County Farm Bureau of Directors.
ODEQ's submittal and the TSD contain further information on
enforceability requirements. In addition, the TSD contains a discussion
of the personnel and funding intended to support effective
implementation of the control strategy.
8. Contingency Measures
As provided in Section 172(c)(9) of the Act, all moderate
nonattainment area SIPs that demonstrate attainment must include
contingency measures. See generally 57 FR 13543-13544. These measures
must be submitted by November 15, 1993, for the initial moderate
nonattainment areas. Contingency measures should consist of other
available measures that are not part of the area's control strategy.
These measures must take effect without further action by the State or
EPA, upon a determination by EPA that the area has failed to make RFP
or attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline. EPA
guidance recommends that the emission reductions expected from
implementation of the contingency measures equal twenty-five percent of
the total reduction in actual emissions in the plan's control strategy
(57 FR 13544). However, the CAA does not specify how many contingency
measures are needed or the magnitude of emissions reductions that must
be provided by these measures (see 57 FR 13511). EPA believes that,
consistent with the statutory scheme, contingency measures must at a
minimum provide for continued progress toward the attainment goal in
the interim period after an area fails to attain and while additional
measures required as a result of being reclassified to serious are
being adopted (see 57 FR 13511). The Klamath Falls nonattainment area
SIP contains the following contingency measures:
a. Uncertified woodstove removal: The 1991 Oregon Legislature
authorized by statute the removal and destruction of uncertified
woodstoves upon sale of a home within any area that fails to meet the
PM-10 SIP attainment date of December 31, 1994. EPA approved these
rules (OAR 340-34-200 through 215) as part of the Oregon SIP on June 9,
1992 (see 57 FR 24373).
b. Industrial Emissions: ODEQ developed an industrial contingency
plan designed to reduce industrial emissions should an area fail to
attain by the CAA attainment date. The regulations requiring emission
reductions, with specific source emission limits, are contained in OAR
340-21-200 through 245. EPA approved
[[Page 28540]]
these rules as part of the SIP on August 19, 1992 (see 57 FR 37468).
The rules apply to existing sources in all of Oregon's PM-10
nonattainment areas. The sources regulated include wood waste boilers,
wood particle dryers at particleboard plants, hardboard manufacturing
plants, and air conveying systems. The rules also require fugitive
emission control plans for large sawmills, plywood mills or veneer
manufacturing plants, hardboard plants, and charcoal manufacturing
plants. In addition, OAR 340-21-200 through 340-21-245 applies to a
major source located outside of a PM-10 nonattainment area which has a
significant impact upon a nonattainment area. According to OAR 340-21-
210(2)(b), upon request by ODEQ, the owner or operator of any source
with the potential to have a significant impact on a PM-10
nonattainment area shall conduct, prior to the attainment date required
in the Clean Air Act and in accordance with a study protocol approved
by ODEQ, a receptor and dispersion modeling study of the impact of
emissions from the source on the PM-10 nonattainment area. As
previously stated, significant impact is defined as 5g/
m63.
c. The continuation of the woodstove certification program after
December 31, 1994), will provide a net reduction in residential wood
burning emissions between the years 1994 and 2004, and on into the
future.
d. Chapter 406.650(1) through Chapter 406.650(9) of the Klamath
County Clean Air Ordinance delineates the contingency measures adopted
by Klamath County. They include, among other things, measures to
further reduce woodsmoke and fugitive dust.
As stated above, the industrial contingency rules apply to existing
sources in all of Oregon's PM-10 nonattainment areas. In actuality,
because of the PM-10 source mix in the area, the measures applicable to
the Klamath Falls PM-10 nonattainment area include wood waste boilers,
wood particle dryers at particleboard plants, hardboard manufacturing
plants, air conveying systems, fugitive emission control plans, and the
analysis of the impact of emissions from a source outside the area
which has the potential to have a significant impact on the
nonattainment area (such as the Weyerhaeuser facility).
Also, as previously discussed, in 1995 ODEQ determined through a
dispersion modeling study that Weyerhaeuser does not have a significant
impact at the monitoring site of reference (Peterson School) during
NAAQS exceedance days, and therefore is not subject to the PM-10
industrial contingency measures.
ODEQ estimates that PM-10 emissions would be reduced an additional
108 tons per year by the year 2000 through implementation of the
woodstove contingency measures. Industrial emissions would be reduced
an additional 132 tons per year through installation of point source
controls to meet the industrial contingency measure requirement.
Additional reductions which cannot be quantified by the emission
inventory would be achieved through the fugitive dust control
contingency measures. Total reductions are estimated at a minimum of
240 tons per year (nonattainment area industries only), which is 23% of
the total annual emission reduction needed for attainment.
The SIP provides that each of the above contingency measures would
have taken effect without further action by the State or EPA had EPA
determined that the Klamath Falls nonattainment area has failed to
achieve RFP or to attain the PM-10 standard by the statutory attainment
date of December 31, 1994.
EPA is proposing to approve the Klamath Falls nonattainment area
contingency measures.
III. Implications of This Action
EPA is proposing to approve the 1991 Attainment Plan and the 1995
revision to the Plan as submitted to EPA for the Klamath Falls
nonattainment area on November 15, 1991, and September 22, 1995,
respectively. Among other things, ODEQ has demonstrated that the
Klamath Falls moderate PM-10 nonattainment area will attain the PM-10
NAAQS by December 31, 1994. In fact, the area has not experienced an
exceedance of the NAAQS since 1991. Note that EPA's action includes
approval of the contingency measures for the Klamath Falls
nonattainment area.
IV. Administrative Review
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under Section 110 and Subchapter I, Part D, of the
CAA do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP-
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,
due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under the CAA,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S. Ct. 1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted on by the rule.
EPA has determined that the proposed action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors, and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action by the EPA
Region 10 Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management
[[Page 28541]]
and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866
review.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, and Particulate matter.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: May 24, 1996.
Jane S. Moore,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-14120 Filed 6-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14118 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: Wisconsin
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28541-28545]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14118]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52 and 81
[WI70-1-7296; FRL-5510-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: Wisconsin
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) request to redesignate Walworth County to
attainment for ozone. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve the
associated maintenance plan as a revision to the Wisconsin State
Implementation Plan (SIP).
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received by July 5,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Carlton T. Nash,
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Toxics and Radiation Branch
(AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Copies of the State's submittal and EPA's analysis (Technical
Support Document) are available for inspection at the following
location: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air
and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604. (It is recommended that you telephone Randy Robinson at (312)
353-6713 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Robinson at (312) 353-6713.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In accordance with requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 (ACT), Walworth County was designated as a marginal ozone
nonattainment area on November 6, 1991, (56 FR 56850). The
nonattainment designation was based on air quality monitored violations
of the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Recent air quality data shows that Walworth County is not in
violation of the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the area is eligible for
redesignation to attainment based on a minimum of 3 years of ``clean''
air quality data, as required in the Act. On December 15, 1995, the
WDNR submitted a request for redesignation to attainment and a
maintenance plan for ozone for Walworth County. The remainder of this
notice will discuss the regulatory requirements for redesignation to
attainment, the details of the Wisconsin submittal, and EPA's
rulemaking action.
II. Redesignation Review Criteria
The Act provide the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, Section 107(d)(3)(E) provides for
redesignation if: (i) The Administrator determines that the area has
attained the NAAQS; (ii) The Administrator has fully approved the
applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (iii)
The Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due
to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable implementation plan and applicable
Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and
enforceable reductions; (iv) The Administrator has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of Section
175(A); and (v) The State containing such area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under Section 110 and Part D.
The EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 (General Preamble), 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), supplemented at
57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). Three key memoranda provide further
guidance with respect to Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act. The first,
dated September 4, 1992, was issued by John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division, Subject: Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment (Calcagni Memorandum). The
second, dated September 17, 1993, was issued by Michael Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Subject: State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Area Submitting Requests for
Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) NAAQS
on or after November 15, 1992, (Shapiro Memorandum). The third, dated
October 14, 1994, was issued by Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation, Subject: Part D New Source Review Requirements
for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment (Nichols Memorandum).
Analysis of State Submittal
A. The Area must have attained the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard
For ozone, an area may be considered attaining the NAAQS if there
are no violations, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR Sec. 50.9,
based on 3 complete, consecutive calendar years of quality assured
monitoring data. The data that are used should be the product of
ambient monitoring that is representative of the area believed to have
the highest concentration. A violation of the NAAQS occurs when the
annual average number of expected daily exceedances is equal to or
greater than 1 at any site under consideration. A daily exceedance
occurs when the maximum hourly ozone concentration during a given day
exceeds 0.124 parts per million (ppm). The data should be collected and
quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58, and recorded in the
Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS).
Walworth County contains one ozone monitor, located in Lake Geneva,
Wisconsin. To demonstrate monitored attainment with the standard, the
WDNR submitted ozone monitoring data for the April 15 through October
15 ozone season for 1992, 1993, and 1994.
Monitored Ozone Concentrations
[Parts per billion]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Year 1st High 2nd High 3rd High 4th High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walworth................................................. 1992 120 101 97 96
1993 107 93 91 89
[[Page 28542]]
1994 98 94 91 84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The annual average expected exceedance for this 3-year time period
is 0.0. No violations were recorded during this 3-year time period.
Additionally, no exceedances were recorded during the 1995 ozone
monitoring season. This data has been quality assured and is recorded
in AIRS.
B. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Under Section 110(k); and the Area Must Have Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and Part D
In November 1991, Walworth County was designated marginal
nonattainment for ozone based on monitored ozone violations occurring
in 1988. As a result of this designation, the WDNR was required to
submit a revised SIP that meets the requirements of the Act and
demonstrates attainment with the ozone standards.
Section 110: General Requirements for Implementation Plans. Section
110(a)(2) of the Act lists the elements to be included in each SIP
after adoption by the State and reasonable notice and public hearing.
The elements include, but are not limited to, provisions for
establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems,
and procedures necessary to monitor ambient air quality; implementation
of a permit program, provisions for Part C Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and D New Source Review (NSR) permit programs,
criteria for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring,
and reporting, provisions for modeling, and provisions for public and
local agency participation. For purposes of redesignation, the Walworth
County SIP was reviewed to ensure that all requirements under the
amended Act were satisfied. The EPA has determined that the Walworth
County SIP is consistent with the requirements of Section 110 of the
Act.
Part D: General Provisions for Nonattainment Areas. Before Walworth
County may be redesignated as attainment, it must have fulfilled the
applicable requirements of Part D. Under Part D, an area's
classification determines the requirements to which it is subject.
Subpart 1 of Part D sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements
applicable to all nonattainment areas. Subpart 2 of Part D establishes
additional requirements for ozone nonattainment areas classified under
table 1 of Section 181(a). As described in the General Preamble,
specific requirements of Subpart 2 may override Subpart 1's general
provisions (57 FR 13501 (April 16, 1992)). Walworth County was
classified as a marginal nonattainment area. Therefore, in order to be
redesignated, the State must meet the applicable requirements of
Subpart 1 of Part D--specifically Sections 172 and 176, as well as the
applicable requirements of Subpart 2 of Part D.
Section 172 Requirements. The State redesignation request for
Walworth County has satisfied all of the relevant submittal
requirements under Section 172 necessary for the area to be
redesignated to attainment.
The reasonable further progress (RFP) requirement under Section
172(c)(2) is defined as progress that must be made toward attainment.
This requirement is not relevant because Walworth County has already
demonstrated monitored attainment of the ozone NAAQS (General Preamble,
57 FR 13564).
Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. The
requirement was superseded by the inventory requirement in Section
182(a)(1). The WDNR submitted such an inventory on November 15, 1992.
It was approved on June 15, 1994 (59 FR 30702).
Section 172(c)(5) requires permits for the construction and
operation of new and modified major stationary sources anywhere in the
nonattainment area. The WDNR submitted information on nonattainment
area new source review rules on November 15, 1992. The rules were
approved by EPA on January 18, 1995 (60 FR 3538 ). The State's
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program will become
effective in Walworth County upon redesignation to attainment. The
State was delegated the PSD program on November 4, 1987.
Section 176 Conformity Requirements. Section 176 of the Clean Air
Act requires States to revise their SIPs to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that, before they are taken, Federal actions
conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable State SIP.
The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation
plans, programs and projects developed, funded or approved under Title
23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act (``transportation conformity''),
as well as to all other Federal actions (``general conformity'').
Section 176 further provides that the conformity revision to be
submitted by the States must be consistent with Federal conformity
regulations that the Act required the EPA to promulgate. Congress
provided for the State revisions to be submitted 1 year after the date
of promulgation of final EPA conformity regulations.
The EPA promulgated final transportation conformity regulations on
November 24, 1993, (58 FR 62188) and general conformity regulations on
November 30, 1993, (58 FR 63214). Pursuant to Section 51.396 of the
transportation conformity rule and Section 51.851 of the general
conformity rule, the State of Wisconsin submitted a SIP revision
containing transportation and general conformity criteria and
procedures on November 23, 1994, and November 30, 1994, respectively.
The EPA has not yet approved these rules as part of the SIP.
The EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret the conformity
requirements as not being applicable requirements for purposes of
evaluating the redesignation request under Section 107(d). The
rationale for this is based on a combination of two factors. First, the
requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with the conformity
provisions of the Act continues to apply to areas after redesignation
to attainment, since such areas would be subject to a Section 175A
maintenance plan. Second, EPA's Federal conformity rules require the
performance of conformity analyses in the absence of federally approved
State rules. Therefore, because areas are subject to the conformity
requirements regardless of whether they are redesignated to attainment
and must implement conformity under Federal rules if State rules are
not yet approved, the EPA believes it is reasonable to view these
requirements as not being applicable requirements for purposes of
evaluation of a redesignation request. Consequently, the ozone
redesignation request for the Walworth County area may be approved
notwithstanding the lack of fully approved State
[[Page 28543]]
transportation and general conformity rules. This policy was also
exercised in the Tampa, Florida ozone redesignation finalized on
December 7, 1995 (60 FR 62748).
Subpart 2 Section 182 Requirements. Walworth County is classified
marginal nonattainment; therefore, Part D, Subpart 2, Section 182(a)
requirements apply. In accordance with guidance presented in the
Shapiro memorandum, the requirements which came due prior to the
submission of the request to redesignate the Walworth County area must
be fully approved into the SIP before the request to redesignate the
area to attainment can be approved. Those requirements are discussed
below:
Section 182(a)(1) 1990 Base Year Inventory. The 1990 base year
emission inventory was due on November 15, 1992. It was submitted to
EPA on November 15, 1992, and approved by EPA on June 15, 1994, (59 FR
30702).
Section 182(a)(3)(B) Emission Statements. The emission statements
SIP was due on November 15, 1992. It was submitted to the EPA on
November 15, 1992, and approved by EPA on December 6, 1993 (58 FR
64155).
Section 182(a)(2)(A) RACT Corrections. The WDNR submitted
information regarding RACT corrections on November 15, 1992. The EPA
approved the RACT corrections on August 15, 1994 (59 FR 41709).
Section 182(a)(4) 1.1 to 1.0 Offset. Section 182(a)(4) requires all
major new sources or modifications in a marginal nonattainment area to
achieve offsetting reductions of VOCs at a ratio of at least 1.1 to 1.0
as part of New Source Review (NSR). The Mary Nichols memorandum states
that areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that
an NSR program be approved prior to redesignation if the State can
demonstrate maintenance of the standard without the NSR restrictions.
The State has demonstrated that maintenance can be maintained without
NSR offsets in effect. Therefore, this requirement is not applicable.
Upon redesignation to attainment, the sources will become subject to
PSD requirements and offsets will no longer apply. Emissions will
continue to be tracked every 3 years.
Section 182(f) NOX Requirement. Section 182(f) establishes
NOX requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. However, it
provides that these requirements do not apply to an area if the
Administrator determines that NOX reductions would not contribute
to attainment. On July 13, 1994, WDNR submitted, along with the other
Lake Michigan area states (i.e., Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan), a
Section 182(f) NOX petition to be relieved of the Section 182(f)
NOX requirements based on urban airshed modeling. The modeling
demonstrated that NOX reductions would not contribute to
attainment of the NAAQS for ozone in the modeled area, which includes
Walworth County. The EPA approved the petition on January 26, 1996 (61
FR 2428).
C. The Improvement in Air Quality Must Be Due to Permanent and
Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From the SIP, Federal
Measures and Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
The State must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement in
air quality to emission reductions which are permanent and enforceable.
To satisfy this requirement, the State should estimate the percent
reduction from the year that it used to determine the design value for
designation and classification, to the attainment year (Calcagni
Memorandum). These reductions may be achieved from Federal measures and
control measures that have been adopted and implemented by the State.
Emission rates, production capacities and other information should be
used in the estimation. Sources should be assumed to operate at
permitted or historic peak levels unless evidence is presented that
such an assumption is unrealistic.
The WDNR submittal documents reductions in VOC and NOX
emissions from 1988 (the design year) to 1993 (the attainment year).
Those reductions are shown in the tables below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector 1988 1990 1993
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Emissions (Tons per day):
Point...................... 1.48 1.51 1.55
Area....................... 7.53 7.58 7.63
Mobile..................... 13.87 12.14 9.59
----------------------------------------
Totals................. 22.88 21.23 18.77
========================================
% Change from 1988 (design
year)..................... ........... -7.17 -17.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector 1988 1990 1993
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emissions (Tons per day):
Point...................... 0.53 0.54 0.55
Area....................... 0.77 0.79 0.73
Mobile..................... 12.07 11.89 11.60
----------------------------------------
Totals................. 13.37 13.22 12.88
========================================
% Change from 1988 (design
year)..................... ........... -1.1 -3.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The tables show that VOC and NOX emissions decreased 4.1 and
0.49 tons per day, respectively from 1988 to 1993. The 1988 emissions
in the above Tables were back casted from 1990 base year emissions,
according to variables such as population growth, economic growth, and
vehicle miles traveled. Although Walworth County experienced economic
and population growth during the years 1988 to 1993, county-wide VOC
and NOX decreased during that time period. The majority of the
reductions are due to lower highway motor vehicle emissions. These
reductions are directly attributable to the implementation of the
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP).
[[Page 28544]]
D. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Meeting the
Requirements of Section 175A
Section 175A of the CAA defines requirements for maintenance plans.
The maintenance plan is a SIP revision which provides for maintenance
of the relevant NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years after
redesignation. There are five core provisions which the maintenance
plan should address: the attainment inventory, maintenance
demonstration, monitoring network, verification of continued
attainment, and a contingency plan. The attainment inventory should
identify the level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to
attain the ozone NAAQS and should include the emissions during the time
period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment.
Maintenance is demonstrated by showing that future emissions will not
exceed the level of the attainment inventory. The maintenance plan must
also provide for continued operation of an appropriate air quality
monitoring network to verify attainment status of the area. The plan
must indicate how the State will track the progress of the maintenance
plan. Finally, the maintenance plan must include contingency measures
which would promptly correct any violation of the ozone NAAQS that
occurs after redesignation of the area to attainment.
Attainment Inventory. The Walworth County submittal contained
inventories of 1990 actual VOC and NOX emissions from stationary,
area, and mobile sources. This is the most accurate, comprehensive
emission inventory available for the area. The 1990 emission inventory
was projected to 1993 to provide an emissions inventory representative
of attainment conditions based upon the lack of a monitored ozone
violation for the years 1992-1994.
Maintenance Demonstration. The Walworth County submittal shows
projected VOC and NOX emissions from the 1993 attainment inventory
to 2007. The projections show that the level of emissions established
for the attainment year inventory will not be exceeded over the 10-year
maintenance period. The following tables list the VOC, and NOX
emissions for the base year, interim year and the final year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sector 1993 attain 1996 proj. 2007 proj.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of VOC Emissions (tons/
day):
Area......................... 7.62 7.37 7.37
Point........................ 1.55 1.60 1.79
Mobile....................... 9.59 9.39 8.00
--------------------------------------
Totals................... 18.77 18.36 17.16
======================================
% Change from 1993........... ........... -2.18 -8.58
Summary of NOX Emissions (tons/
day):
Area......................... 0.73 0.73 0.66
Point........................ 0.55 0.57 0.64
Mobile....................... 11.60 11.39 10.19
--------------------------------------
Totals................... 12.88 12.68 11.48
======================================
% Change from 1993........... ........... -1.60 -10.87
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission Projections. All emission projections were made from
emissions calculated for WDNR's 1990 base year inventory. The 1990 base
year inventory reflects tons per typical summer day emissions as well
as an 80 percent rule effectiveness assumption. Projections were
generally based on the following equation: Proj. Emissions = 1990
Emissions*Proj. Factor*(1-(Cont. Efficiency)*(RE)*(RP)) where RE = rule
effectiveness (default = 80 percent) and RP = rule penetration.
Projections of stationary source emissions through the year 2007
were developed based primarily on economic growth projection factors.
The annual growth factors were derived from this data and those growth
factors were used to determine future year inventories. The area source
emissions were projected using a variety of growth factors such as
population growth, gasoline market, vehicle miles traveled, farmland,
etc. To project future year mobile VOC emissions, a VMT growth rate of
2.7 percent was used for the period between 1988 and 1999. The VMT
growth rate for 2000 to 2007 drops to 2.2 percent. These estimates were
provided by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission.
The MOBILE5a model was run to produce emission factors for the years
1988, 1990, 1993, 1996, and 2007.
Monitoring Network. There is currently one monitor measuring ozone
in Walworth County. The WDNR has committed to continue operating and
maintaining its ozone monitor in Walworth County for the 10 year
maintenance period to verify the attainment status of the area.
Contingency Plan. The contingency plan for Walworth County contains
three major components: attainment tracking, contingency measures, and
a mechanism that triggers the implementation of the contingency
measures. In a SIP revision submittal dated April 12, 1996, the State
revised the section of the redesignation request pertaining to the
triggering and implementation of the contingency plan. As discussed
below, the revisions incorporate EPA review and approval, and public
review and comment procedures into the contingency plan methodology.
The WDNR will the track the progress of the maintenance plan for
Walworth County by generating VOC and NOX emissions inventories for
point, area, and mobile sources for the years 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005,
and 2007.
The contingency measures to be considered for implementation are
Stage II vapor recovery and non-CTG RACT measures. Selection of the
contingency measures will take place in the event the ozone NAAQS is
violated and if an EPA approved analysis shows that emission sources
within Walworth County caused the violation. This analysis is being
conducted because the State has maintained that the level of ozone in
Walworth County is due to ozone and ozone precursors being transported
from upwind urbanized areas such as the greater Chicago area. Both the
sudy protocol and the completed analysis will be submitted to EPA for
approval. The completed analysis will be subject to public comment. If
the analysis shows the violation not to be attributable to
[[Page 28545]]
transport from other areas, contingency measures will be implemented
according to the following schedule:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity Completion time
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Violation of the ozone NAAQS:
Verify violation and submit plan to 60 days after violation
analyze violation to EPA for approval. measurement.
Submit completed analysis, public 14 months after violation
notice and comment material to EPA measurement.
for approval.
Implement Stage II vapor recovery..... 24 months after violation.
Non-CTG RACT measures................. 24 months after violation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Walworth County submittal adequately addresses the five basic
components which comprise a maintenance plan (attainment inventory,
maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of
continued attainment, and a contingency plan) and, therefore, satisfies
the maintenance plan requirement in Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv).
E. The Area Must Have Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110
and Part D
Section 110 and Part D requirements were discussed under section II
B, above.
III. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve WDNR's December 15, 1995, request
for redesignation to attainment for ozone and Section 175A maintenance
plan for Walworth County.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. The EPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in
light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Ozone SIPs are designed to satisfy the requirements of Part D of
the Act and to provide for attainment and maintenance of the ozone
NAAQS. This proposed redesignation should not be interpreted as
authorizing the State to delete, alter, or rescind any of the VOC or
NOX emission limitations and restrictions contained in the
approved ozone SIP. Changes to ozone SIP VOC regulations rendering them
less stringent than those contained in the EPA approved plan cannot be
made unless a revised plan for attainment and maintenance is submitted
to and approved by EPA. Unauthorized relaxations, deletions, and
changes could result in both a finding on nonimplementation [Section
173(b) of the Clean Air Act] and in a SIP deficiency call made pursuant
to Section 110(a)(2)(H) of the Clean Air Act.
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989, (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by
a July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.)
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act''), 2 U.S.C. 1532, requires that the EPA prepare a
budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by State, local, and
tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any 1 year. Section 203, 2 U.S.C. 1533, requires the
EPA to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing,
educating, and advising any small governments that may be significantly
or uniquely affected by the rule.
Under Section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, 2 U.S.C. 1535, the
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 objectives of the rule, unless the EPA explains why
this alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative
is inconsistent with law.
Because this proposed rule is estimated to result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments or the private
sector of less then $100 million in any 1 year, the 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, the EPA is not required to develop a
plan with regard to small governments.
SIP approvals under Section 110 and Subchapter I, Part D, of the
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements, but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify
that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities
affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship
under the Clean Air Act, preparation of a regulatory flexibility
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of the State action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to
base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v.
EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Motor vehicle pollution, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic
compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: May 13, 1996.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-14118 Filed 6-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14105 Big Thicket National Preserve, Moored Houseboats
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28530-28531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14105]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 7
RIN 1024-AC45
Big Thicket National Preserve, Moored Houseboats
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) is proposing regulations that
will require all houseboat owners to register their houseboats at the
Office of the Superintendent of the Preserve to adhere to regulations
pertaining specifically to moored houseboats within the boundaries of
the Preserve. This rulemaking will also include regulations pertaining
to sanitation and refuse (trash removal), fire extinguishers and
personal flotation devices on board houseboats. The addition of the
proposed regulations will allow the NPS to identify each houseboat
owner in the event emergency notification is needed while the houseboat
is vacant. The regulations will also assist the park in monitoring
recreational activities directly related to houseboats. These
regulations will enhance protection of the resources in the Preserve
while providing improved visitor protection services by park personnel.
DATES: Written comments will be accepted through August 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to: Superintendent, Big Thicket
National Preserve, 3785 Milam, Beaumont, Texas 77701.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert D. Appling, Chief Ranger Big
Thicket National Preserve, Telephone 409-839-2689.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Houseboats have been moored on the Neches River and its tributaries
since before Big Thicket National Preserve was established. The mooring
of houseboats within the Preserve is considered a traditional use and
should be allowed to continue. Houseboat owners are primarily local
residents of the Southeast Texas area.
Houseboat owners and the recreational activities associated with
these moored houseboats have been mostly unregulated since the Preserve
was established in 1974 (16 U.S.C. 698). Activities associated with
houseboats have led to the degradation of Preserve resources in a
variety of ways, including the poaching of fish and game, damage to and
removal of vegetation to establish egress routes, concentrated human
use impacts, stream bank erosion and the prohibited discharge of
sewage, animal and fish remains, and other aquatic pollutants.
Houseboats have been left unattended for long periods of time and
many are utilized only during the approved hunting season. Attempts by
Preserve personnel to contact houseboat owners to inform them of damage
to their property or to advise them of violations of regulations have
proven to be extremely difficult. Many houseboat owners do not have
telephones and the park does not have permanent addresses where the
owners can be contacted.
The NPS believes that the addition of these regulations will
provide for better management of the land and water resources of the
Preserve and improve overall communications with houseboat owners by
providing accurate and updated information concerning hunting, fishing,
boating and water use activities.
Public Participation
It is the policy of the Department of Interior, whenever
practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the
rulemaking process. Accordingly, interested persons may submit written
comments regarding this proposed rule to the address noted at the
beginning of this rulemaking. Big Thicket National Preserve will also
publish public notices in local papers informing the general public of
the proposed rule. The NPS will review comments and consider making
changes to the final rule based upon an analysis of the comments.
Drafting Information. The primary authors of this proposed rule
are Robert D. Appling, Chief Ranger and Richard F. Strahan, Chief,
Division of Resource Management, and Dennis Burnett, Washington
Office of Ranger Activities, National Park Service.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not contain collections of information
requiring approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Compliance With Other Laws
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review
under Executive Order 12866. The Department of the Interior determined
that this document will not have a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 USC 601 et seq.). The economic effects of this rulemaking are
local in nature and negligible in scope.
The NPS has determined that this proposed rulemaking will not have
a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, health
and safety because it is not expected to:
(a) Increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature
and character of the area or causing physical damage to it;
(b) Introduce incompatible uses which compromise the nature and
character of the area or causing physical damage to it;
(c) Conflict with adjacent ownerships or land uses; or
(d) Cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants.
Based on this determination, the regulation is categorically
excluded from the procedural requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) by Departmental guidelines in 516 DM 6 (49 FR 21438).
As such, neither an Environmental Assessment (EA) nor an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7
National parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed to amend 36 CFR
Chapter I as follows:
PART 7--SPECIAL REGULATIONS, AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM
1. The authority citation continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460(q), 462(k); Sec. 7.96 also
issued under D.C. Code 8-137 (1981) and D.C. Code 40-721 (1981).
2. Section 7.85 is amended by adding new paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 7.85 Big Thicket National Preserve.
* * * * *
(e) Moored houseboats. Except as otherwise provided, the following
regulations will be applicable:
(1) All houseboats moored on waterways within the boundaries of Big
Thicket National Preserve are required to be registered with the Office
of the Superintendent, Big Thicket National Preserve. Houseboats will
be assigned a number and a decal at the beginning of each calendar
year. It is further required that written notification will be given to
the Office of the Superintendent prior to relocation of a houseboat
from its registered location.
(2) Houseboats will be located a minimum distance of one-half mile
from other houseboats.
[[Page 28531]]
(3) New houseboats that have buoyancy flotation devices enabling
the houseboat to float will be limited to styrofoam-type material or
commercially made flotation products such as pontoon floats. Houseboats
utilizing containers made of metal (e.g., 55 gallon drums for buoyancy/
flotation) will not be permitted unless the container has never been
used to store any type of product inside and proof to this effect is
provided.
(4) Houseboats will have a chemical or other marine-type approved
holding tank or storage container. Discharge of sewage into waters
within the Preserve is prohibited.
(5) All trash and other waste material accumulated on houseboats
will be properly disposed of outside the Preserve boundaries. Burying
or burning trash is prohibited.
(6) All weapons on houseboats will be unloaded and cased.
(7) Houseboats will be equipped with a minimum of one approved Type
B-l fire extinguisher, one Type I personal flotation device for each
individual occupying the houseboat, and one Type IV buoyant cushion or
ring buoy.
(8) Houseboats will have a minimum of three reflective devices
located so as to be visible to other marine type traffic from sunset to
sunrise.
(9) Fires on Preserve land will not be left unattended and will be
completely extinguished before leaving the area of the moored
houseboat.
(10) Damage to any trees or vegetation on Preserve land surrounding
the moored houseboat is prohibited. This includes such actions as, but
not limited to:
(i) Mooring houseboats to trees;
(ii) Nailing objects to trees;
(iii) Clearing of vegetation; and
(iv) Streambank modification.
(11) All persons registering a houseboat within the boundaries of
Big Thicket National Preserve will comply with all regulations
pertaining to moored houseboats.
Dated: May 9, 1996.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 96-14105 Filed 6-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14095 Preservation and Conservation Health, Safety, and Enforcement
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28545-28547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14095]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28546]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Parts 6000-9000
[WO-340-1220-00-24 1A]
RIN 1004-AC87
Preservation and Conservation Health, Safety, and Enforcement
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to President Clinton's Government-wide regulatory
reform initiative, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has conducted a
page-by-page review of its regulations to determine which should be
eliminated, revised, or moved to internal guidelines. The purpose of
this notice is to share with the public how the BLM plans to
restructure Parts 6000-9000 of Title 43 CFR into a more streamlined,
user-friendly framework. The notice has no regulatory text.
DATES: Comments must be received by July 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send Comments to the mail address: Regulatory Management
Team (420), Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street, NW., Room 401LS,
Washington, D.C. 20240, OR the Internet address:
[email protected] [For Internet, please include ``Attn:
AC87'', your name and return address.] You may also hand deliver
comments to the BLM Regulatory Management Team, Room 401, 1620 L
Street, NW., Washington, D.C.
Comments will be available for public review at the L Street
address during regular business hours, from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Frances Watson, Regulatory Management Team, at 202-452-5006.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 4, 1996, President Clinton issued a
Memorandum to all Federal Departments and Agencies directing them to
simplify their regulations. In response to this directive, the BLM
reviewed its regulations using the following criteria:
Is the regulation current?
Can the regulation be eliminated without negative
consequences?
Is the regulation's subject matter better suited for
policy statements or manual/handbook guidance?
Can the regulation be easily understood?
This Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking shows how the BLM plans
to reorganize, renumber and retitle 43 CFR Parts 6000-9000; it includes
no regulatory text. The text for these parts will be available in the
near future when the BLM publishes proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register for public review and comment. Some of the proposed
regulations will be revised substantively; some merely will be
rewritten in a more readable format; some will be removed. We will
provide detailed explanations for our actions when the proposed
rulemakings are published in the Federal Register.
Under the Regulatory Reform effort, the BLM has revoked some
unnecessary regulations in previous issues of the Federal Register, and
will publish reinvention proposals in coming issues in a continuing
effort to implement the President's plan.
For convenience, this preamble includes two charts. The first chart
shows the new framework for 43 CFR Parts 6000-9000. The second is a
conversion chart for these parts, which shows the existing parts and
the corresponding new parts. It also indicates the parts that have been
deleted and will be deleted, and lists the disposition of those parts
that will be moved out of Parts 6000-9000 to other parts of Title 43 of
the Code of Federal Regulations.
Framework for 43 CFR Parts 6000-9000
SUBCHAPTER F--PRESERVATION AND CONSERVATION (6000)
Part
6000 [Reserved]
6100 Wildlife Management
6200 Wild Free-Roaming Horses & Burros
6300 Wilderness and Primitive Areas
6400 Wild and Scenic Rivers
6500 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
6600 Paleontological Resources
SUBCHAPTER G--HEALTH, SAFETY, AND ENFORCEMENT (7000)
7100 Trespass
7200 Law Enforcement, Criminal
SUBCHAPTERS H-I [RESERVED]
7300-9000 [Reserved]
Conversion Table for 43 CFR Parts 6000-9000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New
Existing parts parts Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6000................................. 6100
4700, 4710, 4720, 4730, 4740, 4750, 6200
4760, 4770.2, 4770.3.
8500, 8560.0 (All sections), 8560.1, 6300
8560.1-1, 8560.2, 8560.3, 8560.4
(All sections), 8560.5(b).
8350, 8351........................... 6400
1610.7-2............................. 6500
3622, 8224, 8365.1-5(b).............. 6600
9230................................. 7100
4770.1, 4770.4, 4770.5, 8340.0-7, 7200
8341.1, 8343, 8343.1, 8560.1-2,
8560.5(a), 9000, 9239, 9260, 9261,
9262, 9263, 9264, 9265, 9266, 9267,
9268, 9269.
6220................................. ........ Removed 11/30/95, 60 FR
61487.
8000................................. ........ Removed 04/09/96, 61 FR
15753.
8100................................. ........ To be removed.
8200, 8223 ........ To be removed.
8300 ........ Removed 04/09/96, 61 FR
15753.
8342.3............................... ........ Moved to new Part 1500.
8340.0-1, 8340.0-2, 8340.0-3, 8340.0- ........ Moved to Part 1600.
5, 8340.0-8, 8341.2, 8342.1, 8342.2.
8344................................. ........ Moved to Part 2920.
8360.0 (All sections), 8361, 8362, ........ To be removed.
8363, 8364, 8365.0, 8365.1, 8365.1-
1, 8365.1-2, 8365.1-3, 8365.1-4,
8365.1-5(a), 8365.1-6, 8365.1-7,
8365.2 (All sections).
8370, 8371........................... ........ To be removed.
8372................................. ........ Moved to Part 2920.
[[Page 28547]]
8400................................. ........ Removed 04/09/96, 61 FR
15722.
8600................................. ........ To be removed.
9100, 9180, 9183, 9185............... ........ Moved to Part 2000.
9210................................. ........ To be removed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: May 24, 1996.
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 96-14095 Filed 6-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14053 Permanent Listing of Color Additive Lakes; Extension of Comment Period
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28524-28525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14053]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28525]]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Parts 70, 73, 74, 80, 81, 82, 101, 178, 201, and 701
[Docket Nos. 79N-0043 and 92N-0334]
Permanent Listing of Color Additive Lakes; Extension of Comment
Period
Agency: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Action: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: The Food and Drug Administration is extending to August 3,
1996, the comment period for a proposed rule that published March 4,
1996 (61 FR 8372). The document proposed to list certain color additive
lakes permanently as suitable and safe for use in foods, drugs, and
cosmetics. FDA is taking this action in response to a request for
additional time to review and understand the details of the proposed
rule.
Dates: Written comments by August 3, 1996.
Addresses: Written comments to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305),
Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23, Rockville,
MD 20857. Process descriptions, identity information for anions in
precipitants, and ingredient specifications for substrata (including
rosin), and rosin samples to the Colors Technology Branch (HFS-126),
Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204.
For Further Information Contact:
Regarding proposed certification procedures and proposed product
ingredient declarations: Julie N. Barrows, Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition (HFS-105), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St.
SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-205-4662.
Regarding other issues: Arthur L. Lipman, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-217), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C
St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3073.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of March 4, 1996 (61
FR 8372), FDA issued a proposed rule to list certain color additive
lakes permanently as suitable and safe for use in foods, drugs, and
cosmetics. The proposed rule modified a July 21, 1995, proposed rule
regarding label declaration of FD&C Yellow No. 6 (60 FR 37611).
Interested persons were given until June 3, 1996, to submit written
comments on the proposal.
The agency has received a request from the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and
Fragrance Association (CTFA) for an extension of the comment period for
the proposal. Although FDA's general policy is not to extend such
comment periods so that necessary regulations can be issued as
expeditiously as possible, in this case the agency agrees that the
requestor and others may need additional time to study the
ramifications of this complex proposal in order to submit meaningful
comments. Therefore, after careful consideration, FDA is extending the
comment period for the proposal for an additional 60 days, until August
3, 1996.
Interested persons may, on or before August 3, 1996, submit to the
Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments regarding
this proposal. Four copies of any comments are to be submitted, except
that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified
with the docket number of the rulemaking or rulemakings to which the
comment is relevant. As stated in the March 4, 1996, proposed rule (61
FR 8372 at 8406), comments on modifications to the July 21, 1995 (60 FR
37611), proposal regarding label declaration of FD&C Yellow No. 6
should be identified with both docket numbers found in brackets in the
heading of this document; comments on other aspects of the proposed
rule should be identified with docket number 79N-0043 only. Received
comments may be seen in the office above between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
In addition, interested persons may, on or before August 3, 1996,
submit to the Office of Cosmetics and Colors (address above) written
comments containing process information relating to the identity and
current use of substrata (including rosin) in lakes, and samples of
such substrata. Written comments regarding the use of anions other than
chloride and sulfate in precipitants may also be submitted to this
address. Two copies of each comment and one 5-pound sample are to be
submitted, and each submission is to be identified with the docket
number (79N-0043) found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Dated: May 29, 1996.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 96-14053 Filed 5-31-96; 12:12 pm]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14041 Proposed Research Plan on Vision Standard
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28547-28550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14041]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
49 CFR Part 391
[FHWA Docket No. MC-96-4]
Proposed Research Plan on Vision Standard
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of
Transportation.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA is requesting comments on a proposed research plan to
explore performance-based alternatives to the existing vision standard
for drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMV). The findings of this
research effort may result in the modification of that standard. The
FHWA seeks comments on all aspects of the research plan, including its
scientific merit, likelihood of achieving its objective, methodological
validity, consideration of all relevant research, and other practical
issues.
The FHWA is also announcing a public hearing to obtain comments on
the proposed research plan. The hearing is designed to obtain public
input on the proposed research plan, not to determine the status of
individual drivers or participants in the vision waiver program. At the
hearing, the FHWA does not intend to discuss the status, results, or
recommendations that might result from the vision waiver program.
A review of scientific literature relevant to the vision standard
and the proposed research plan have been placed in FHWA Docket MC-96-4.
In addition, both documents are accessible electronically through the
Federal Highway Administration's World Wide Web (WWW) site.
DATES: The comment period will remain open until further notification
in the Federal Register. The public hearing will be held on August 9,
1996, at the Chicago O'Hare Marriot, 8535 West Higgins Road, Chicago,
IL, 60631, (312) 693-4444.
ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed comments to FHWA Docket MC-96-4, Room
4232, HCC-10, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Highway
Administration, 400 Seventh Street., SW., Washington, DC 20590.
The literature review and proposed research plan are on the Federal
Highway Administration's World Wide Web site (http://
cti1.volpe.dot.gov/ohim/whtnewhd). Users with questions about the
operation of the WWW site should call the FHWA Computer Help Desk at
(202) 366-1120.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Charles Rombro, Federal Highway
Administration, Office of Motor Carriers, 400 Seventh Street SW., room
3104, Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-5615. Office hours are
from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA is authorized by statute to
establish minimum physical qualification requirements for drivers of
commercial motor vehicles. 49 USC 31502.
The Congress provided the FHWA with complementary regulatory
authority with the enactment of the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984,
codified in substantial part at 49 U.S.C. 31101-31162. This Act
directed the Secretary to establish minimum safety standards to ensure,
inter alia, that ``the physical condition of operators of commercial
motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate such vehicles
safely * * *.'' 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3).
The physical qualification regulations for CMV drivers in
interstate commerce are found at 49 CFR 391.41. The qualification
standards cover 13 areas which directly relate to the driving function.
All but four of the standards adopted by the FHWA permit the individual
determination of a driver's qualification. A person's qualification to
drive is determined by a medical examiner who is knowledgeable about
the on-the-job functions performed by a commercial driver and whether a
particular condition would interfere with the driver's ability to
operate a CMV safely. In the case of vision, hearing, insulin-using
diabetes and epilepsy, the current standards are absolute, providing no
discretion to the medical examiner.
The current vision standard specifies that drivers must meet the
following three conditions:
1. distant visual acuity in each eye of at least 20/40, and distant
binocular acuity of at least 20/40 in both eyes; and
2. field of vision of at least 70 degrees in the horizontal
meridian of each eye; and
3. the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals.
In order to improve protection for the public and provide for
individual determinations of fitness to drive wherever possible, the
Agency is interested in developing performance-based standards. In a
Federal Register notice on the vision waiver program published on
November 17, 1994 (59 FR 59386), the FHWA announced its intention to
initiate a research plan to ``develop parameters for performance-based
visual standards for all commercial drivers.'' 59 FR at 59389. The
research plan outlined in this notice is designed to move the Agency
towards a performance-based vision standard. This standard would
incorporate the measurement of those visual capabilities deemed
necessary for the safe operation of commercial vehicles. The research
discussed below is designed to relate specific visual functions to
specific driving tasks, such as the ability to stay in a lane. The
standards would still be prescriptive in that they would establish a
minimum score which individuals would be required to meet to be allowed
to drive; however, the scoring scheme would be based on detailed
research on the visual attributes required to safely operate a CMV.
Research Plan
The FHWA has developed a proposed research plan, an outline of
which is provided below.
Background
The FHWA's review of the existing literature on vision and driving
research led the FHWA to the following conclusions:
1. The current testing standard lacks criterion, or predictive,
validity; that is, it is not clear that central visual acuity by itself
is a good predictor of safe driving. This detracts from the perceived
fairness of the standard. The principal shortcoming of the current
standard is the emphasis on central visual acuity, which is a measure
of how well an individual can discern static images in the center of
vision under conditions of high luminance. Since many driving
situations involve dynamic images under low luminance, other visual
capacities may be equally
[[Page 28548]]
or more important than central visual acuity.
2. Improving the criterion validity of the vision standard would
most likely require testing a broader array of visual capabilities than
those included in the current standard.
3. There is no assurance that a standard based on a better
understanding of the relationship between different visual capabilities
and driving would result in a significant, measurable improvement in
safety, in part because vision is a contributor to only a small number
of crashes. CMV drivers comprise a small proportion of drivers, and are
represented in a small proportion of crashes, not all of which are
caused by failures of visual performance as currently measured.
However, the weak observed causal relationship between vision and
crashes may be a shortcoming with the current measurement of vision. It
is therefore possible that the measurement of other visual functions
could reveal a more significant and direct connection between vision
and driving ability.
The goals of the proposed research are threefold:
1. Establish a list of visual performance parameters that appear to
hold promise as a basis for a new standard, and design or adapt
performance tests to measure these capabilities.
2. Evaluate the predictive validity of these tests.
3. Based on the results of these tests, establish a trial vision
standard, and test that standard to evaluate its validity.
Outline of the Research Plan
The research contains both a long-term and a short-term track. The
Agency may decide to conduct either of the two tracks individually,
both tracks simultaneously, both tracks consecutively, or neither
track. The emphasis of the short-term plan is to build on existing
knowledge to develop an improved vision test, with the goal of adding
two or three existing vision tests to the battery currently tested.
This track does not call for significant new research, but rather seeks
to take advantage of already completed work. This track could result in
the development of a two-tier standard, with an expanded battery of
tests in the first (screening) tier, and various administrative
measures proposed for the drivers who do not pass this first tier.
Administrative measures may include provisional or restricted licenses,
waivers, or in-use monitoring of drivers.
The long-term plan consists of new research and analysis, which may
lead to the development of a new standard.
Two phases of the research are already complete. The short-term
research consists of six or seven additional stages, as explained
below. The long-term research would consist of four additional phases.
The phases of the research are described below.
Research Completed or Underway
1. Development of the research plan. This phase is complete, and
the work described below is the output of the planning effort. This
phase describes the proposed approaches in some detail; certain
elements are necessarily unspecified. For example, the choice of
specific visual function tests cannot be made before further research
and analysis are complete.
2. Design of testing strategy. This phase involves selecting and
developing the form of the candidate tests, as well as the measures
that the tests must predict. This phase is currently underway.
Selecting the candidate tests includes a general selection of
visual functions to be tested, an inventory of the tests already
available, and identification of new tests to be developed and
validated. Tests should have broad acceptance and stable underlying
population norms. The protocols for testing should be developed and
accepted by researchers and testers, and results must be stable
regardless of who administers the test. Acceptable population norms are
necessary if a test is to be used to classify individuals based on
``normal'' results in the population of CMV drivers.
While some tests, such as the Snellen Letter test of visual acuity,
are broadly accepted and have stable and well understood population
norms, other tests of potentially important visual functions do not
meet these standards. These latter tests would have to be evaluated.
The evaluation would consider how important the visual function is in
the driving task, the extent to which the test results are stable and
reliable, and how readily the tests can be developed for broad usage.
Our review of the literature has led us to focus on the following
visual functions as most relevant to the driving task: static acuity,
contrast sensitivity, dynamic acuity, working field of view, dark
focus, low contrast acuity, glare sensitivity, and vection.
The FHWA, with the assistance of a contractor, is in the process of
identifying the behaviors that the tests must predict--the measures of
effectiveness. This will be followed by the systematic development of
measures to be validated by the visual performance tests.
Theoretically, we would prefer to be able to relate a driver's
performance on vision tests to an actual driving record, especially the
driver's accident record. Because of the infrequency of accidents,
however, we would need to test a very large number of drivers over many
years to obtain reliable results. In addition, a ``clean'' experiment
would require that we allow drivers who we suspect may be deficient in
some key visual function to operate CMVs on the road. Allowing
potentially hazardous drivers to operate CMVs poses obvious safety
problems, and contravenes the FHWA's mandate to protect highway safety.
As a proxy for accidents, we are developing a list of candidate
visually- related driving behaviors. This is a reasonable proxy because
it is the driver's behavior that connects visual deficiencies and
accidents. An example might include the time a driver takes to initiate
a braking maneuver. Behaviors will be selected for further testing
based on their likely validity and practicality. Since we will not be
measuring accidents, it is especially important that the measures are
closely related to driving performance.
After choosing behavioral measures, the Agency will develop test
procedures and protocols.
Proposed Short-Term Research
3. Define criteria for selection of vision tests. The likely
criteria will include: test availability with little or no
modification, scientific reliability, construct validity, practicality
of use in a testing environment, and acceptability to researchers and
testers. While other criteria are possible, the FHWA anticipates that
the factors listed above will be used to screen tests for their
suitability for further research. Much of the work required to define
the criteria has already been completed under tasks 1 and 2.
4. Select candidate tests. The researchers would select 3 to 5
candidate tests for further research. The tests would have to meet the
criteria identified above. The researchers would determine which tests
meet these criteria through a survey of the scientific community and
other interest groups, and through the literature review conducted in
task 1.
5. Design demonstration/evaluation project. This task consists of
specifying the details of the testing procedures. The researchers would
select a site for the tests, choose criteria for obtaining
[[Page 28549]]
test subjects, and detail the protocols for administering the vision
tests.
6. Conduct empirical evaluation of operational feasibility. This is
the actual testing component, in which the drivers will be tested in an
operational setting to ensure that the new test battery's facilities
requirements are not excessive, its personnel needs are realistic, and
that the tests can be administered, scored, and interpreted in a timely
fashion by the individuals responsible for administering the tests.
7. Conduct empirical evaluation of validity of pass/fail criteria
for those candidate vision tests without sufficiently demonstrated
construct validity. The first step in this task would be to define the
study sample. The most likely sample would be age-matched 'visually
impaired' and 'visually unimpaired' subjects on the candidate tests
(all subjects would be required to hold a valid CDL). The researchers
would then conduct the vision and performance tests and analyze the
differences in performance between the two groups. Differences would be
measured relative to alternative cutoff scores, so that the Agency
could determine the significance of choosing different levels of
stringency.
The FHWA could decide to bypass task 7, the empirical validation
phase, if it determines that enough information currently exists to
establish a new standard, or that additional research would be unlikely
to lead to significant safety improvements. The Agency estimates that
skipping task 7 would reduce the time needed to complete the research
by one year.
8. Recommend tests and pass/fail criteria. Based on the work
completed above, the researchers would propose specific tests to be
added to the existing testing battery and cutoff scores for each test.
9. Convene interest groups to develop operational recommendations.
These groups would include motor vehicle licensing administrators,
researchers, industry associations, and safety advocates.
Proposed Long-Term Research
10. Design of tests and protocols. This includes developing the
visual performance and behavioral tests specified in task 2, generating
initial data from a pilot test, and designing draft protocols to be
used in later stages.
The visual function test would include some combination of existing
and new tests. The Agency would arrange the practical testing aspects,
including the purchasing and licensing of tests, acquiring any software
and documentation required, and developing the test protocols.
Pilot tests would be conducted on a small sample of drivers to
verify test reliability and suitability for large scale testing. The
Agency would modify procedures and protocols as appropriate. Upon
completion of the pilot test, the FHWA would conduct the visual
function tests on a medium-sized sample of drivers. The sample would be
large enough to allow the Agency to analyze test score characteristics.
Use of pilot tests would allow the Agency to ensure that a test would
produce useable results. In addition, correlation between tests may be
observed, in which case some tests may be eliminated from the final
battery as redundant.
For driver behavior measures, the agency would develop simulator
materials and closed-course testing procedures. To the extent possible,
the FHWA would employ procedures which can be used on multimedia
personal computers with a minimum of special equipment. The Agency
would develop hardware, software, and testing protocols.
The extent of the work performed in this task will depend on
whether the Agency conducts the short-term research. Some of the work
outlined above may be conducted in task 2 of the short-term track. If
that is the case, we will not repeat the work in this task.
11. Laboratory Simulation. This phase consists of evaluating the
candidate tests in a controlled setting, to identify and correct any
problems in the testing or protocols. This step is essentially a
``dress rehearsal'' for the full scale test. Because the next phase is
the most costly in terms of time and resources, this phase was designed
to allow the Agency to make a final decision about whether to continue
with the research prior to commencing with the next phase of the plan,
the full testing and evaluation.
A limited number of subjects would be given all the proposed visual
function and driver behavior tests. The results of these tests would be
analyzed extensively, including relationships between and among both
sets of tests. The analysis would address the following issues:
a. Are the distributions of scores useable?
b. Is there sufficient variance to discern relationships between
visual and driving tests?
c. How well do visual tests predict driving results, by themselves
and in combination with other tests? How much of the variance between
individuals in driving behavior can the vision tests explain?
The agency would also conduct a preliminary cost-benefit analysis.
In addition to projecting the cost of the next phases of the research
program, the analysis would estimate the cost of implementing a new
vision standard and the possible safety benefits.
12. Validation Testing. This phase consists of two sequential
activities, test preparation and data collection, the crux of the
proposed research.
Test preparation includes selection and configuration of test
sites, plus selection and preparation of subjects. The site (or sites)
selected must have, or be able to accommodate, a driving simulator, a
closed test course, and a road test course. Site preparation includes
configuring the testing equipment for the site, surveying the road test
course, and preparing and deploying signs and obstacles for the closed
test course. Preparation of the subjects consists of briefing the
participants and pre-testing them for the visual measures.
A final closed-course pilot test would then be conducted, using a
small number of drivers. This would provide the Agency with a final
opportunity to modify the test procedures.
Validation testing would probably include at least two distinct
activities, simulation and closed-course testing, and would possibly
also include controlled road testing. Variables would be strictly
controlled in these simulation tests to ensure the accuracy and
reliability of results. The FHWA expects that the simulators used for
this phase would be more sophisticated, with higher video resolution
than those used in the previous pilot test.
Closed-course testing would be used to test drivers under low
visibility conditions. This is difficult to imitate on a simulator and
is unsafe to test on the road.
If road testing is conducted, it would consist of non-intrusive
instruments to record driver responses, such as eye movement patterns,
blink rates, pupil diameter, and fixation points. This information,
combined with data on the roadway obstacles, provides a stream of data
related to working field of view, detection time, and how drivers react
to critical events. The road test would be conducted under normal
driving conditions to assure that the results are generalizable to
normal CMV operating practices. There are a number of hurdles to using
a road test, including the need to perform the test for an
impractically long period to obtain sufficient data, and the
possibility that drivers would modify their behavior if they are aware
[[Page 28550]]
that they are under observation. The FHWA would decide whether to
conduct the road test after analyzing the results obtained in the
simulation and closed-course tests.
13. Standard Development. The results of the preceding task would
be analyzed for validity, reliability, and practicality. If the results
of the validation testing justify specification of a new standard, a
decision framework for that standard would be constructed.
Specific Questions
The FHWA is specifically interested in comments addressing the
following issues:
1. Are there any methodological shortcomings in the research plan
outlined above that need to be addressed?
2. Is the plan likely to meet the objective of leading to an
improved, performance-based vision standard?
3. Does the plan reflect an understanding of the current literature
and consider its implications?
4. Is the plan capable of adequately addressing practical matters,
such as the cost of any new testing machinery developed, the level of
training required to conduct new tests, and the time needed to take
tests?
5. Has this type of research been conducted in other professions?
What were the results?
6. Should the FHWA proceed with the short-term plan, the long-term
plan, both, or neither?
7. Should the FHWA proceed with an alternative plan? If so,
describe that plan.
Current Status of the Research Program
The FHWA is currently in the midst of step 2 of the research plan,
which consists of inventorying existing tests and evaluating them
against a number of criteria, including their cost, which visual
functions they measure, overlap between different tests, and the amount
of training required to conduct the tests.
Format of Public Hearing
The FHWA announced in the November 17th notice (59 FR 59386) its
intention to hold a public hearing to discuss the research plan. The
public hearing will be held on August 9, 1996, at the Chicago O'Hare
Marriot, 8535 West Higgins Road, Chicago, IL 60631, (312) 693-4444. The
hearing will begin at 8:30 a.m. and conclude at 4:30 p.m.
Individuals wishing to speak at the hearing should contact the FHWA
at the address or phone number listed above under the heading ``For
Further Information Contact.'' Individuals may submit written comments
in addition to, or in place of, oral testimony. All commentors will be
limited to ten minutes of oral remarks.
The hearing will commence with an explanation of the proposed
research plan, including a brief description of the background to this
effort, the goals of the proposed research, and the steps of the
proposed plan. The FHWA will then accept questions from audience
members, with individuals who have contacted the FHWA given the first
opportunity to speak.
(49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3), 31502)
Issued on: May 20, 1996.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-14041 Filed 6-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14038 Airworthiness Directives; Allied Signal Commercial Avionics Systems CAS-81 Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS) as Installed In, But Not Limited To, Various Transport Category Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28518-28520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14038]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-NM-81-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Allied Signal Commercial Avionics
Systems CAS-81 Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS) as
Installed In, But Not Limited To, Various Transport Category Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to revise an existing airworthiness
directive (AD), applicable to various transport category airplanes
equipped with Allied Signal Commercial Avionics Systems CAS-81 TCAS.
That AD currently requires a revision to the Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM) to provide the flightcrew with procedures to cycle power to the
TCAS processor via the circuit breaker or power bus, and to perform a
TCAS functional test to verify proper operation of the TCAS. That
action was prompted by reports of failure of the audio output of the
CAS-81 TCAS. The actions specified by that AD are intended to ensure
that the flightcrew is advised of the potential hazard associated with
failure of the audio output of the CAS-81 TCAS, and of the procedures
necessary to address it. This action would add a revision of the AFM
requirements that would provide an alternative method of compliance
with the currently required AFM revision; and would provide for a
modification to the TCAS processor, which, if accomplished, terminates
the requirements of the AD.
DATES: Comments must be received by July 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-NM-81-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location
between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Allied Signal Aerospace, Technical Publications, Dept.
65-70, P.O. Box 52170, Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2170. This information
may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Crew, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Flight Test Branch, ACE-116A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft
Certification Office, Small Airplane Directorate, Campus Building, 1701
Columbia Avenue, Suite 2-160, College Park, Georgia 30337-2748;
telephone (404) 305-7335; fax (404) 305-7348.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
-Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
-Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
-Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their
comments submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-
addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made:
``Comments to Docket Number 96-NM-81-AD.'' The postcard will be date
stamped and returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
-Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 96-NM-81-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
-On January 22, 1996, the FAA issued AD 95-26-15, amendment 39-9495
(61 FR 2699, January 29, 1996), applicable to various transport
category airplanes equipped with Allied Signal Commercial Avionics
Systems CAS-81 Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS).
That AD requires a revision to the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM) to provide the flightcrew with procedures to cycle power to the
TCAS processor via the circuit breaker or power bus, and to perform a
TCAS functional test to verify proper operation of the TCAS. That
action was prompted by reports of failure of the audio output of the
CAS-81 TCAS. The requirements of that AD are intended to ensure that
the flightcrew is advised of the potential hazard associated with
failure of the audio output of the CAS-81 TCAS, and of the procedures
necessary to address it.
Explanation of New Service Information
-Since the issuance of that AD, Allied Signal has issued Service
Bulletin TPA-81A-34-82, dated January 1996, which describes procedures
for a modification (Unit Mod 13) of the TPA-81A TCAS processor
receiver. This modification adds two 100k ohm resistors to circuitry on
the voice synthesizer module (VSM) to provide a direct current (DC)
return for the Op-Amp. Additionally, the modification adds four diodes
to the ADV. INHIBIT #1, #2, #3, and #4 lines (advisory inhibit) at
connector P3011 for isolation. This modification will eliminate audio
noise and prevent a lack of AUDIO alert due to the absence of a return
path to ground in an alternate current (AC) coupled filter in the VSM.
The modification also will eliminate the need to isolate diodes of the
advisory inhibit lines in certain configurations.
-Allied Signal also issued Service Bulletin TPA-81A-34-84, dated
January 1996, which describes procedures for modification of the TPA-
81A TCAS processor receiver. The modification involves redesignating
(rolling) the part numbers of processors modified to Unit Mod 13. This
modification will prevent failure of the
[[Page 28519]]
audio alert annunciation circuit when a unit has power applied for more
than twelve hours at elevated temperatures.
-The FAA has reviewed and approved these service bulletins, and has
determined that accomplishment of these modifications will positively
address the unsafe condition identified as failure of the audio output
of the CAS-81 TCAS.
Comments Received in Response to AD 95-26-15
-In response to the request for comments to AD 95-26-15, Airbus
requests that the AD include a currently approved alternative means of
compliance with the AFM revision required by paragraph (a) of the AD.
For airplanes on which the manufacturer has substantiated 30 degrees
Celsius as a maximum ambient temperature for the avionics compartment,
this alternative method of compliance revises the Limitations Section
of the FAA-approved AFM by including the following:
In order to ensure that the audio output of the CAS-81 TCAS
operates properly, accomplish the following:
Prior to each flight of up to 18 hours duration, reset the TCAS
circuit breaker and conduct a TCAS self-test.
-The FAA concurs, and has added a new paragraph (b) to this
proposal accordingly.
Airbus also requests that additional information be added to the AD
to clarify that maintenance personnel should perform the revisions to
the AFM and should enter and sign-off the required actions into the
logbook. -
The FAA does not concur that this AD should be revised to include
the additional information requested by the commenter. Persons
authorized to perform the work required by an AD are generally not
prescribed by an AD. Part 43 (``Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance,
Rebuilding, and Alteration'') and part 121 (``Certification and
Operations: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Air Carriers and
Commercial Operators of Large Aircraft'') of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR parts 43 and 121) specify persons authorized to
perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and
alterations, as well as maintenance record entry requirements, and
approval for return to service of the airplane after maintenance.
Additionally, Airbus requests that Models A300B2, A300B4, A310-200,
A310-200, A300-600, A320-100, A320-200, A321-100, A330-300, A340-200,
and A340-300 series airplanes be included in the list of airplanes
included in the applicability of the AD.
The FAA concurs. The FAA points out, however, that the proposed AD
(as well as the previously issued AD) is applicable to the subject TCAS
unit itself, notwithstanding the model of airplane on which it is
installed. As an aid to operators in identifying whether or not they
are subject to the rule, the FAA has included a list of the airplane
models on which the TCAS unit is known to be installed. However, this
list is limited in that it does not include every airplane on which the
TCAS may be installed.
Explanation of Requirements of Proposed Rule
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the
proposed AD would revise AD 95-26-15 to add a new AFM requirement that
would specify an alternative method of compliance with the currently
required AFM revision. The proposed AD would provide for a modification
of the TCAS processor, which, if accomplished, terminates the
requirements of the existing AD. The proposed AD also identifies
additional airplane models on which the subject TCAS unit may be
installed.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 5,000 various transport category airplanes
in the worldwide fleet on which the subject TCAS unit may be installed.
The FAA estimates that 3,650 airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD.
The actions that are currently required by AD 95-26-15, and
retained in this proposed revision, take approximately 1 work hour per
airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour.
Based on these figures, the cost impact of the existing AD on U.S.
operators is estimated to be $219,000, or $60 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of
this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in
the future if this AD were not adopted.
Should an operator elect to accomplish the proposed optional
terminating modification rather than continue using the AFM revision,
it would take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at
an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would be
furnished by the manufacturer at no cost to the operator. Based on
these figures, the cost impact of this optional terminating action is
estimated to be $180 per airplane.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-9495 (61 FR
2699, January 29, 1996), and by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD), to read as follows:
Allied Signal Commercial Avionics Systems: Docket 96-NM-81-AD.
Revises AD 95-26-15, Amendment 39-9495.
Applicability: CAS-81 Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance
Systems (TCAS) that are installed in, but not limited to, the
following airplanes, certificated in any category:
Aerospatiale Models ATR42 and ATR72 series airplanes;
[[Page 28520]]
Airbus Industrie Models A300B2, A300B4, A310-200, A310-300,
A300-600, A320-100, A320-200, A321-100, A330-300, A340-200, and
A340-300 series airplanes;
Beech Models 1900 and BE-65 through -90 (inclusive) series
airplanes;
Boeing Models 727-100, 727-200, 737-200, 737-300, 737-400, 737-
500, 747-100, 747-200, 747-300, 747-400, 747SP, 757-200, 767-200,
and 767-300 series airplanes;
Convair Model CV-580 airplanes;
de Havilland DHC-7 series airplanes and Model DHC-8-100
airplanes;
Embraer Model EMB-120 series airplanes;
Fairchild Model F227 airplanes;
Fokker Models F28 Mark 100, Mark 1000, and Mark 4000 series
airplanes;
General Dynamics Models Convair 340 and 440 airplanes;
Gulfstream Models G-159 and G-IV airplanes;
Lockheed Model L1011 series airplanes;
McDonnell Douglas Models DC-8-60, DC-9-31, DC-9-51, DC-10-10;
DC-10-30, DC-10-30F, MD-11, and MD-80 series airplanes;
Rockwell International NA-265-65 airplanes;
Saab Model 340 series airplanes; and
Shorts Model 360 series airplanes.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane on which the TCAS unit
identified in the preceding applicability provision has been
installed, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified,
altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this
AD. For affected TCAS units or airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Note 2: CAS-81 Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems
(TCAS) processors having serial numbers 6066 and subsequent, are not
subject to the requirements of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously. -
To ensure that the flightcrew is advised of the potential hazard
associated with failure of the audio output of the CAS-81 TCAS, and
of the procedures necessary to address it, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 3 calendar days after February 5, 1996 (the effective
date of AD 95-26-15, amendment 39-9495), revise the Limitations
Section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to include
the following. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this
AD in the AFM.
``In order to ensure that the audio output of the CAS-81 TCAS
operates properly, accomplish the following:
Prior to the first flight of the day; prior to the
accumulation of 10 hours of power; and at the mid-point of any one
flight scheduled to exceed hours: Cycle the power to the TCAS
processor via the circuit breaker or power bus.
Prior to taxi before takeoff: Initiate the TCAS
functional test in accordance with AFM procedures to verify
operational condition of the CAS-81 TCAS.''
-(b) For airplanes on which the manufacturer has substantiated
30 degrees Celsius as a maximum ambient temperature for the TCAS
processor location, the following is considered to be an alternative
method of compliance for the AFM revision requirements: Revise the
Limitations Section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)
to include the following. This may be accomplished by inserting a
copy of this AD in the AFM. After revising the AFM, the AFM revision
required by paragraph (a) of this AD may be removed from the AFM.
``In order to ensure that the audio output of the CAS-81 TCAS
operates properly, accomplish the following:
Prior to each flight of up to 18 hours duration, reset the TCAS
circuit breaker and conduct a TCAS self-test.''
-(c) Modification of the TPA-81A TCAS processor receiver in
accordance with Allied Signal Service Bulletin TPA-81A-34-82, dated
January 1996, and Allied Signal Service Bulletin TPA-81A-34-84,
dated January 1996, constitutes terminating action for the
requirements of this AD. After this modification is accomplished,
the AFM revisions specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this AD may
be removed from the AFM.
-(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Small Airplane Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Atlanta ACO.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Atlanta ACO.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 30, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-14038 Filed 6-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14033 Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney JT9D Series Turbofan Engines
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28520-28522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14033]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-ANE-57]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney JT9D Series Turbofan
Engines
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to Pratt & Whitney JT9D series
turbofan engines. This proposal would require installing an improved
design turbine exhaust case (TEC) with a thicker containment wall or
modified TEC. This proposal is prompted by reports of 64 uncontained
engine failures since 1972. The actions specified by the proposed AD
are intended to prevent release of uncontained debris from the turbine
exhaust case following an internal engine failure, which can result in
damage to the aircraft.
DATES: Comments must be received by August 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), New England Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-ANE-57, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299. Comments may also be
submitted to the Rules Docket by using the following Internet address:
``[email protected]''. Comments may be inspected at this
location between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Pratt & Whitney, Publications Department, Supervisor
Technical Publications Distribution, M/S 132-30, 400 Main St., East
Hartford, CT 06108; telephone (860) 565-7700. This information may be
examined at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Kerman, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone (617)
238-7130, fax (617) 238-7199.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may
[[Page 28521]]
be changed in light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-ANE-57.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-ANE-57, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803-5299.
Discussion
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has determined that the
turbine exhaust case (TEC) on Pratt & Whitney (PW) JT9D-3, -7, -20, -
59A, -70A, -7Q, and -7R4 series turbofan engines may not be capable of
containing a release of engine debris should an internal engine failure
occur. The FAA has determined, based on service experience, that TEC
penetrations have resulted from multiple internal gas path failure
modes. Primary penetrations of the TEC have been isolated to the outer
wall between the leading edge of the casing struts and the forward
``P'' flange. This condition, if not corrected, could result in release
of uncontained debris from the turbine exhaust case following an
internal engine failure, which can result in damage to the aircraft.
Service experience has demonstrated that there exists a need for
out-of-plane, aft containment. The FAA has received reports of 64
uncontained failures of the TEC since 1972.
These TEC penetrations have resulted from a variety of failure
modes. In some incidents, the engine failures have occurred as far
upstream as the fan module No. 1 bearing to as far downstream as the
sixth stage low pressure turbine blades. In all instances these
failures have caused a balling effect in which downstream debris has
penetrated through the TEC shell wall. As a result of these
uncontainments, PW has refined their analytical containment model based
on the results of ballistics testing. PW utilized this data to
establish new casing wall thickness requirements for aft containment.
Pratt & Whitney has developed three containment improvements: a
redesigned, thick-wall TEC developed for all models of the JT9D engine;
containment shields for all models of the JT9D engine; and a new TEC
``P'' flange and case wall replacement for all models of the JT9D
engine excluding the Model JT9D-7R4D (BG-700 series) turbofan engines.
The FAA has reviewed and approved the technical contents of the
following PW Service Bulletins (SB's): SB No. 6113, dated April 13,
1993; SB No. 5977, dated December 14, 1990; SB No. JT9D-7R4-72-479,
Revision 1, dated November 12, 1993; SB No. 6243, dated February 1,
1996; SB No. JT9D-7R4-72-513, Revision 2, dated January 10, 1996; SB
No. 5907, dated March 27, 1990; SB No. JT9D-7R4-72-407, Revision 1,
dated August 16, 1990; SB No. JT9D-7R4-72-466, Revision 2, dated May
10, 1996; SB No. 6118, Revision 3, dated January 10, 1996; and SB No.
6157, dated February 9, 1994. These SB's describe replacing the
previous TEC with a new, thicker case wall TEC, installing a new
containment shield for enhanced containment capability, and replacing
the TEC ``P'' flange and case wall with a thicker cross section.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the
proposed AD would require installing an improved design TEC with a
thicker containment wall, modifying the existing TEC to incorporate a
containment shield, or modifying the existing TEC to replace the ``P''
flange and case wall. The FAA has established a compliance end-date of
48 months after the effective date of this AD based upon shop visit
rates for hot section overhaul. The actions would be required to be
accomplished in accordance with the service bulletins described
previously.
There are approximately 2,748 engines of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 740 engines installed on
aircraft of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that
it would take approximately 14 work hours per engine to accomplish the
proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour.
Required parts would cost approximately $1,404 per engine. Based on
these figures, the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S.
operators is estimated to be $1,660,560.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Pratt & Whitney: Docket No. 95-ANE-57.
Applicability: Pratt & Whitney (PW) JT9D-3, -7, -20, -59A, -70A,
-7Q, and -7R4 series turbofan engines, installed on but not limited
to Airbus A300 and A310 series; Boeing 747 and 767 series; and
McDonnell Douglas DC-10 series aircraft.
Note: This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to each engine
identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of
whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area
subject to the requirements of this AD. For engines that have been
modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the
requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must
[[Page 28522]]
use the authority provided in paragraph (b) to request approval from
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This approval may address
either no action, if the current configuration eliminates the unsafe
condition, or different actions necessary to address the unsafe
condition described in this AD. Such a request should include an
assessment of the effect of the changed configuration on the unsafe
condition addressed by this AD. In no case does the presence of any
modification, alteration, or repair remove any engine from the
applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent release of uncontained debris from the turbine
exhaust case (TEC) following an internal engine failure, which can
result in damage to the aircraft, accomplish the following:
(a) At the next removal of the TEC from the low pressure turbine
case ``P'' flange for overhaul, where the No. 4 bearing, carbon
seals, lubrication pressurization lines, or scavenge lines are
removed for maintenance after the effective date of this AD, but not
later than 48 months after the effective date of this AD, accomplish
the following:
(1) For PW JT9D-3A, -7, -7A, -7AH, -7H, -7F, -7J, -20, and -20J
series turbofan engines, accomplish any one of the following
actions:
(i) Install a thicker-walled TEC, with Part Numbers (P/N's)
listed in PW SB No. 6113, dated April 13, 1993, as applicable; or
(ii) Install a modified TEC that incorporates a containment
shield, with P/N's listed in PW SB No. 5907, dated March 27, 1990,
as applicable; or
(iii) Install a modified TEC that incorporates a replacement
``P'' flange and case wall, with P/N's listed in PW SB No. 6118,
Revision 3, dated January 10, 1996.
(2) For PW JT9D-7Q and -7Q3 series turbofan engines, accomplish
any one of the following actions:
(i) Install a thicker-walled TEC, with P/N's listed in PW SB No.
5977, dated December 14, 1990; or
(ii) Install a modified TEC that incorporates a containment
shield, with P/N's listed in PW SB No. 5907, dated March 27, 1990,
as applicable; or
(iii) Install a modified TEC that incorporates a replacement
``P'' flange and case wall, with P/N's listed in PW SB No. 6157,
dated February 9, 1994.
(3) For PW JT9D-59A and -70A series turbofan engines, accomplish
one of the following actions:
(i) Install a thicker-walled TEC, with P/N's listed in PW SB No.
6243, dated February 1, 1996; or
(ii) Install a modified TEC that incorporates a containment
shield, with P/N's listed in PW SB No. 5907, dated March 27, 1990,
as applicable;
(iii) Install a modified TEC that incorporates a replacement
``P'' flange and case wall, with P/N's listed in PW SB No. 6157,
dated February 9, 1994.
(4) For PW JT9D-7R4D (BG-700 series) turbofan engines,
accomplish either of the following actions:
(i) Install a thicker-walled TEC, with P/N's listed in PW SB No.
JT9D-7R4-72-479, Revision 1, dated November 12, 1993; or
(ii) Install a modified TEC that incorporates a containment
shield, with P/N's listed in PW SB No. JT9D-7R4-72-407, Revision 1,
dated August 16, 1990, as applicable.
(5) For PW JT9D-7R4D (BG-800 series), -7R4D (BG-900 series), -
7R4D1 (AI-500 series), -7R4E (BG-800 series), -7R4E (BG-900 series),
-7R4E1 (AI-500 series), -7R4E1 (AI-600 series), -7R4E4 (BG-900
series), -7R4G2 (BG-300 series), and -7R4H1 (AI-600 series) turbofan
engines, accomplish any one of the following actions:
(i) Install a thicker-walled TEC, with P/N's listed in PW SB No.
JT9D-7R4-72-513, Revision 2, dated January 10, 1996; or
(ii) Install a modified TEC that incorporates a containment
shield, with P/N's listed in PW SB No. JT9D-7R4-72-466, Revision 2,
dated May 10, 1996; or
(iii) Install a modified TEC that incorporates a replacement
``P'' flange and case wall, with P/N's listed in PW SB No. JT9D-7R4-
72-513, Revision 2, dated January 10, 1996.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Engine Certification Office. The
request should be forwarded through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Engine Certification Office.
Note: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this airworthiness directive,
if any, may be obtained from the Engine Certification Office.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 22, 1996.
Robert E. Guyotte,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 96-14033 Filed 6-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13992 Extension of Comment Period for Administration of Tobacco Tariff- Rate Quota
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 28522] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 96-13992] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 19 CFR Part 132 Extension of Comment Period for Administration of Tobacco Tariff- Rate Quota AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Notice of extension of comment period. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: On February 20, 1996, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) published a notice soliciting comments and views on the administration of the tariff-rate quota on leaf tobacco, established on September 13, 1995, which was operating on a first-come, first-served basis (61 FR 6333). Because of request by interested parties for an extension of the comment period, USTR is extending the comment period until June 19, 1996. DATES: Comment period extended until June 19, 1996. ADDRESSES: Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Room 222, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508, attention: Tobacco Tariff-Rate Quota. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Perkins, Senior Economist, Office of Agricultural Affairs, USTR, (202) 395-6127; or Rachel Shub, Assistant General Counsel, USTR (202) 395-7305. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Persons submitting written comments should provide a statement, in ten copies, by noon June 19, 1996 to Sybia Harrison, Office of the United States Trade Representative, Room 222, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508, attention: Tobacco Tariff- Rate Quota. Non-confidential information received will be available for public inspection by appointment, in the USTR Reading Room, Room 101, Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. For an appointment call Brenda Webb at (202) 395-6186. Business confidential information will be subject to the requirements of 15 CFR 2003.6 Any business confidential material must be clearly marked as such on the cover letter or page and each succeeding page, and must be accompanied by a non-confidential summary thereof. Jennifer Hillman, General Counsel. [FR Doc. 96-13992 Filed 6-4-96; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3190-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13990 Unitization
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28525-28528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13990]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service
30 CFR Part 250
RIN 1010-AC19
Unitization
AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: MMS proposes to amend its unitization regulations by removing
the model unit agreements for exploration, development, and production
units and development and production units. The model agreements would
be available from the Regional Supervisor. The rule would also be
written in ``plain English.'' We take this action to support the
President's initiative to reform Government regulations. Our interest
is to shorten the regulation and clarify the wording.
DATES: MMS will consider all comments received by August 5, 1996. We
will begin reviewing comments at that time and may not fully consider
comments we receive after August 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand-carry written comments to the Department of the
Interior, Minerals Management Service, 381 Elden Street, Mail Stop
4700, Herndon, Virginia 22070-4817, Attention: Chief, Engineering and
Standards Branch.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Judith M. Wilson, Engineering and Standards Branch, telephone (703)
787-1600.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The rules on unitization in 30 CFR part 250,
implementing Section 5(a)7 of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands
Act Amendments of 1978, were published on May 2, 1980. The rules were
amended on February 16, 1982. The amended rulemaking removed the
provisions that required segregation of the portion of the OCS oil and
gas lease not included in the unit agreement. That amendment was based
on the Department of the Interior (DOI) Solicitor's Opinion M-36927.
The rules were amended again in April 1988, when MMS restructured and
consolidated into one document the rules governing oil, gas, and
sulphur exploration, development, and production operations on the OCS.
The model unit agreements were incorporated at this time. The last
revision was in July 1991, to include sulphur operations in
unitization.
This subpart, 30 CFR part 250, Subpart M, Unitization, is intended
to
[[Page 28526]]
prevent waste, conserve natural resources (protection of marine life
was incorporated into conservation in 1971), and/or protect correlative
rights. The rules include provisions to:
explain the authority and requirements for unitization;
provide for compulsory or voluntary unitization;
explain requirements for competitive reservoir operations;
explain how a lessee may request a determination of
whether a reservoir is competitive;
explain how to submit a joint development and production
plan;
explain the process for voluntary unitization;
explain the process for compulsory unitization; and
explain the role of a model agreement.
This proposed rule does not intend any substantive changes to this
regulation. It would shorten existing regulations by removing the model
unit agreements. The ``plain English'' would clarify the rule.
There are two model unit agreements, one for exploration,
development, and production units, the other for development and
production units. The model agreements would continue to be available
from the Regional Supervisor. The Regional Supervisor could approve
variations from the model agreements for good cause.
Author: This document was prepared by Judy Wilson, Engineering and
Standards Branch, Offshore Resource Evaluation Division, MMS.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
This rule does not meet the criteria for a significant rule
requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O.
12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Since this proposed amendment has no economic effects, DOI has
determined that this proposed rule will not have a significant effect
on a substantial number of small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains a collection of information which has
been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
and approval under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burden, MMS invites the public and other Federal agencies to
comment on any aspect of the reporting burden. Submit your comments to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention Desk
Officer for the Department of the Interior (OMB control number 1010-
0068), Washington, DC 20503. Send a copy of your comments to the Chief,
Engineering and Standards Branch; Mail Stop 4700; Minerals Management
Service; 381 Elden Street; Herndon, Virginia 22070-4817. You may obtain
a copy of the proposed collection of information by contacting the
Bureau's Information Collection Clearance Officer at (703) 787-1242.
The title of this collection of information is ``30 CFR 250,
Subpart M, Unitization.'' OMB previously approved it under OMB control
number 1010-0068.
The collection of information consists of a proposed unit
agreement; a proposed initial plan of operation; supporting geological,
geophysical, and engineering data; and any other information necessary
to show that the unitization proposal meets the criteria in
Sec. 250.190. If approved, respondents will submit to MMS a unit
agreement, unit operation agreement, and the initial plan of operation
as the Regional Supervisor may require.
MMS uses the information to ensure that operations under the
proposed unit agreement will prevent waste, conserve natural resources,
and protect correlative rights including the Government's interests.
Respondnets are Federal OCS oil, gas, and sulphur lessees. MMS
receives approximately 53 responses each year. The frequency of
submission varies.
MMS estimates the annual reporting burden to be approximately 2,424
hours, an average of 45.7 hours per response. Based on $35 per hour,
the burden hour cost to respondents is estimated to be $84,840. The
estimate of other annual costs to respondents is unknown.
MMS will summarize written responses to this notice and address
them in the final rule. All comments will become a matter of public
record.
1. MMS specifically solicits comments on the following questions:
(a) Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the
proper performance of MMS's functions, and will it be useful?
(b) Are the estimates of the burden hours of the proposed
collection reasonable?
(c) Do you have any suggestions that would enhance the quality,
clarity, or usefulness of the information to be collected?
(d) Is there a way to minimize the information collection burden on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information
technology?
2. In addition, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires
agencies to estimate the total annual cost burden to respondents or
recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. MMS needs
your comments on this item. Your response should split the cost
estimate into two components:
(a) Total capital and startup cost component and
(b) Annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of services
component.
Your estimates should consider the costs to generate, maintain, and
disclose or provide the information. You should describe the methods
you use to estimate major cost factors, including system and technology
acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, discount
rate(s), and the period over which you incur costs. Capital and startup
costs include, among other items, computers and software you purchase
to prepare for collecting information; monitoring, sampling, drilling,
and testing equipment; and record storage facilities. Generally, your
estimates should not include equipment or services purchased: before
October 1, 1995; to comply with requirements not associated with the
information collection; for reasons other than to provide information
or keep records for the Government; or as part of customary and usual
business or private practice.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 provides that an agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
Takings Implication Assessment
The DOI certifies that this rule does not represent a governmental
action capable of interference with constitutionally protected property
rights. A Takings Implication Assessment prepared pursuant to E.O.
12630, Government Action and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights, is not required.
Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995
This rule does not contain any unfunded mandates to State, local,
or tribal governments or the private sector.
E.O. 12988
DOI has certified to OMB that this proposed rule meets the
applicable civil justice reform standards provided in Sections 3(b)(2)
of E.O. 12988.
[[Page 28527]]
National Environmental Policy Act
MMS has examined the proposed rulemaking and has determined that
this rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment pursuant to Section
102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)).
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 250
Continental shelf, Environmental impact statements, Environmental
protection, Government contracts, Incorporation by reference,
Investigations, Mineral royalties, Oil and gas development and
production, Oil and gas exploration, Oil and gas reserves, Penalties,
Pipelines, Public lands--mineral resources, Public lands--rights-of-
way, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulphur development and
production, Sulphur exploration, Surety bonds.
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Minerals Management
Service proposes to amend 30 CFR part 250 as follows:
PART 250--SUBPART M--UNITIZATION
1. The authority citation for part 250 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1334.
2. Subpart M is revised to read as follows:
Subpart M--Unitization
Sec.
250.190 What is the purpose of this subpart?
250.191 What are the requirements for unitization?
250.192 What if I have a competitive reservoir on my lease?
250.193 How do I get approval for voluntary unitization?
250.194 How will MMS require unitization?
Subpart M--Unitization
Sec. 250.190 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart explains how Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leases are
unitized. If you are an OCS lessee, use the regulations in this subpart
for both voluntary and required unitization situations. The purpose of
unitization is to:
(a) Conserve natural resources;
(b) Prevent waste; and/or
(c) Protect correlative rights, including Federal royalty
interests.
Sec. 250.191 What are the requirements for unitization?
(a) Voluntary unitization. You and other OCS lessees may ask the
Regional Supervisor to approve a request for voluntary unitization. The
Regional Supervisor may approve the request for voluntary unitization
if unitized operations:
(1) Will promote and expedite lease exploration and development; or
(2) Are necessary to prevent waste, conserve natural resources, or
protect correlative rights, including Federal royalty interests, of a
reasonably delineated and productive reservoir.
(b) Compuslory unitization. The Regional Supervisor may require you
and other lessees to unitize operations if unitized operations are
necessary to prevent waste, conserve natural resources, or protect
correlative rights of a reasonably delineated and productive reservoir.
(c) Unit area. The area that a unit includes is the minimum number
of leases that will allow the lessees to minimize the number of
platforms, facility installations, and wells necessary for efficient
exploration, development, and production. A unit may include whole
leases of portions of leases.
(d) Unit agreement. You and the other lessees of the leases in the
unit must enter into a unit agreement that allocates benefits to
unitized leases. The unit agreement must designate a unit operator and
specify the effective date of the unit agreement. A unit agreement of
terminates when the unit no longer produces unitized substances and the
unit operator no longer conducts drilling or well-workover operations
under the unit agreement, unless the Director orders or approves a
suspension of production under Sec. 250.10.
(e) Unit operating agreement. The unit operator and the owners of
working interests in the unitized leases must enter into a unit
operating agreement. The unit operating agreements must describe how
all the unit participants will apportion all costs and liabilities
incurred maintaining or conducting operations. When a unit involves one
or more net-profit-share leases, the unit operating agreement must
describe how to attribute costs and credits to the net-profit-share
lease(s).
(f) Termination or adjustment of a unit agreement. If your unit
agreement expires or terminates, or if MMS adjusts the unit area to
exclude your lease from the unit, your lease expires unless:
(1) Its initial term has not expired;
(2) You conduct drilling, production, or well-reworking operations
on your lease consistent with applicable regulations; or
(3) MMS orders or approves a suspension of production or operations
for your lease.
(g) Unit operations. If your lease is subject to a unit agreement,
the entire lease continues for the term provided in the lease and as
long thereafter as any portion of your lease remains part of the unit
area, and as long as operations continue the unit in effect.
(1) Drilling, production, and well-reworking operations performed
on any lease in accordance with the unit agreement benefit all leases
in the unit. If your unit ceases drilling activities for a period
between the discovery and delineation of one or more reservoirs and the
initiation of actual development and production operations and that
time period would extend beyond your lease's primary term, you must
request and obtain MMS approval of a suspension of production under
Sec. 250.10.
(2) When a lease in a unit agreement is beyond the primary term and
the lease or unit is not producing, the lease will expire unless:
(i) You conduct a continuous drilling or well reworking program
designed to develop or restore the lease or unit production; or
(ii) MMS orders or approves a suspension of operations under
Sec. 250.10.
Sec. 250.192 What if I have a competitive reservoir on my lease?
(a) The Regional Supervisor may require you to conduct development
and production operations in a competitive reservoir under either a
voluntary joint Development and Production Plan or a unitization
agreement. A competitive reservoir has one or more producing or
producible well completions on each of two or more leases, or portions,
with different owners. For purposes of this paragraph, a producible
well completion is a well which is capable of production and which is
shut in but not necessarily connected to production facilities, and
from which the operator plans future production.
(b) You may request that the Regional Supervisor make a preliminary
determination whether a reservoir is competitive. When you receive the
preliminary determination, you have 30 days (or longer if the Regional
Supervisor allows additional time) to concur or to submit an objection
with supporting evidence if you do not concur. The Regional Supervisor
will make a final determination and notify you.
[[Page 28528]]
(c) If you conduct drilling or production operations in a
competitive reservoir, you and the other affected lessees must submit
for approval a joint plan of operations. You must submit the joint plan
within 90 days after the Regional Supervisor makes a final
determination that the reservoir is competitive. The joint plan must
provide for the development and/or production of the reservoir. You may
submit supplemental plans for the Regional Supervisor's approval.
(d) If you and the other affected lessees cannot reach an agreement
on a joint Development and Production Plan within the approved period
of time, each lessee must submit a separate plan to the Regional
Supervisor. The Regional Supervisor may hold a hearing to resolve
differences in the separate plans. If the differences in the separate
plans are not resolved at the hearing and the Regional Supervisor
determines that unitization is necessary under Sec. 250.191(b), MMS
will initiate unitization under Sec. 250.194.
Sec. 250.193 How do I get approval for voluntary unitization?
(a) You must file a request with the Regional Supervisor for
approval of a unit. Your request must include:
(1) A draft of the proposed unit agreement;
(2) A proposed initial plan of operation;
(3) Supporting geological, geophysical, and engineering data; and
(4) Other information that may be necessary to show that the
unitization proposal meets the criteria of Sec. 250.190.
(b) The unit agreement must comply with the requirements of this
part. MMS will provide a model unit agreement for you to follow. If you
make changes to the model agreement, you must obtain the approval of
the Regional Supervisor.
(c) After the Regional Supervisor approves your unitization
proposal, you and the unit operator must sign it and file copies of the
unit agreement, the unit operating agreement, and the plan of operation
with the Regional Supervisor.
Sec. 250.194 How will MMS require unitization?
(a) If the Regional Supervisor determines that unitization of
operations within a proposed unit area is necessary to prevent waste,
conserve natural resources of the OCS, or protect correlative rights,
including Federal royalty interests, the Regional Supervisor may order
unitization according to a plan for unitization. This plan will conform
to the model unit agreement available from the Regional Supervisor
unless the Regional Supervisor approves a variation.
(b) If you ask MMS to compel unitization, you must file a request
with the Regional Supervisor. Include a proposed unit agreement as
described in Sec. 250.192(b), a proposed unit operating agreement, and
a proposed initial plan of operation together with supporting
geological, geophysical, and engineering data, and any other
information that may be necessary to show that unitization meets the
criteria of Sec. 250.190. The proposed unit agreement must include a
counterpart executed by each lessee seeking compulsory unitization.
Lessees seeking compulsory unitization must simultaneously serve, on
the non-consenting lessees, copies of:
(1) The request;
(2) The proposed unit agreement with executed counterparts;
(3) The proposed unit operating agreement; and
(4) The proposed initial plan of operation.
(c) If the Regional Supervisor initiates compulsory unitization,
MMS will serve all lessees of the proposed unit area with a copy of the
plan for unitization and a statement of reasons for the proposed
unitization.
(d) The Regional Supervisor will not compel unitization until MMS
provides all lessees of the proposed unit area written notice and an
opportunity for a hearing. If you want MMS to hold a hearing, you must
request it within 30 days after you receive written notice from the
Regional Supervisor or after you are served with a request for
compulsory unitization from anther lessee.
(e) MMS will not hold a hearing under this paragraph until at least
30 days after MMS provides written notice of the hearing date to all
parties owning interests which would be made subject to the unit
agreement. The Regional Supervisor must give all lessees of the
proposed unit area an opportunity to submit views orally or in writing
and to question both those seeking and those opposing compulsory
unitization. Adjudicatory procedures are not required. The Regional
Supervisor will make a decision based upon a record of the hearing,
including any written information made a part of the record. The
Regional Supervisor will arrange for a court reporter to make a
verbatim transcript. The party seeking compulsory unitization must pay
for the court reporter and pay for and provide to the Regional
Supervisor within 10 days after the hearing three copies of the
verbatim transcript, made by a court reporter.
(f) The Regional Supervisor will issue an order that requires or
rejects compulsory unitization. That order must include a statement of
reasons for the action taken including identification of those parts of
the record which form the basis of the decision. Any party may appeal
the final order of the Regional Supervisor under 30 CFR part 290.
[FR Doc. 96-13990 Filed 6-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13989 Drilling Requirements for Outer Continental Shelf Leases
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28528-28530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13989]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
30 CFR Part 256
RIN 1010-AC15
Drilling Requirements for Outer Continental Shelf Leases
AGENCY: Minerals Management Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Minerals Management Service (MMS) proposes to amend its
lease term regulations to remove the requirement that all lessees begin
an exploratory well within the first 5 years of the primary term for
new 8-year leases on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). MMS is
proposing this change because recently enacted legislation provides
more effective incentives to expedite lease development. A drilling
requirement would apply when MMS stipulates a drilling requirement in
the notice of sale.
DATES: MMS will consider all comments received by August 5, 1996. We
will begin reviewing comments at that time and may not fully consider
comments we receive after August 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand-carry written comments to the Department of the
Interior; Minerals Management Service; 381 Elden Street; Mail Stop
4700; Herndon, Virginia 22070-4817; Attention: Chief, Engineering and
Standards Branch.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Judith M. Wilson, Engineering and Standards Branch, telephone (703)
787-1600.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 8(b) of the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq., as amended, 92 Stat. 629,
states that an oil and gas lease is issued ``for an initial period of
five years; or not to exceed ten years where the Secretary finds that
such longer period is necessary to encourage exploration and
development in areas because of unusually deep water * * *.''
Currently, MMS offers 10-year terms for leases in water depths of 900
meters or more. In water depths of 400 to 900 meters, MMS offers 8-year
lease terms
[[Page 28529]]
subject to a requirement that the lessee begin an exploratory well
within the first 5 years, 30 CFR 256.37.
The OCSLA requires a lessee to be diligent in exploring and
developing a lease. If production begins within the primary term, then
the lease continues for as long as production continues, 30 CFR
256.37(b). However, 5 years may not be adequate time in which to begin
exploratory drilling even for a diligent lessee. Because of unusual
circumstances such as deep water, the lessee risks losing a lease
through no fault of its own.
Due to the number of changes facing the oil and gas leasing
program--such as lower oil prices, technological advances, subsalt
discoveries and expansion to deeper waters--MMS initiated a review of
OCS leasing policy several years ago. MMS found that the requirement
that 8-year leases be drilled by the end of the fifth year did not
result in meaningful increases in drilling. Most of the offered tracts
were relinquished at the end of the fifth year. In particular, between
1985 and 1992, 421 tracts were leased for 8-year terms. Only 29 of the
421 leases had been drilled. Of those 29 leases, only 18 were still
active by the end of 1993.
With the enactment of the OCS Deep Water Royalty Relief Act
(DWRRA), P.L. 104-58, new deepwater leases are offered for sale with
available royalty volume suspensions. Royalty volume suspensions are
available for new fields in at least 200 meters of water and lying west
of 87 degrees, 30 minutes West longitude. Royalty payments on volumes
of production are suspended for at least the first 17.5 million barrels
of oil equivalent (mmboe) in 200 to 400 meters of water; 52.5 mmboe in
400 to 800 meters; and 87.5 mmboe in more than 800 meters of water. MMS
views this significant financial incentive as more effective than the
drilling requirement as a means of achieving earlier drilling. In
addition, the rental rates for all leases lying in waters deeper than
200 meters may be increased (e.g., they were increased from $5.00 to
$7.50/acre in Sale 157) to encourage earlier drilling.
Therefore, MMS proposes to amend its regulation at 30 CFR 256.37 to
remove the requirement that the lessee must begin drilling within 5
years on 8-year leases issued on or after the date this rule becomes
final. The amendment would also change the 400 to 900 meter depth
requirement for 8-year leases to 400 to 800 meters to be consistent
with the DWRRA.
Author: This document was prepared by Judy Wilson, Engineering
and Standards Branch, and Mary Vavrina, Offshore Resource Evaluation
Division, MMS.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
This rule is not a significant rule requiring Office of Management
and Budget review under E.O. 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior (DOI) has determined that this
proposed rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial
number of small entities. Most entities that engage in offshore
activities as operators are not small because of the technical and
financial resources and experience necessary to conduct offshore
activities. Small entities are more likely to operate onshore or in
State waters--areas not covered by the proposed regulation. When small
entities work in the OCS, they are more likely to be contractors rather
than operators. For example, a company that collects geologic and
geophysical data might be a small entity. While these contractors must
follow rules governing OCS operations, we are not changing the rules
that govern the actual operations of a lease. We are only proposing to
modify the rules that govern the length of time required for drilling
an exploratory well. The rule could have a positive secondary effect.
By extending the time available to begin drilling an exploratory well
in unusual circumstances, more leases may be active and this could
result in an increase in opportunities for small entities to perform
services. The added time could also work to benefit small companies who
have slower computers and could benefit from a longer period of time to
review data.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed rule does not contain new information collection
requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). The information collection requirements in 30 CFR part
256 are approved by OMB under approval No. 1010-0006.
Takings Implication Assessment
The DOI certifies that this rule does not represent a governmental
action capable of interference with constitutionally protected property
rights. A Takings Implication Assessment prepared pursuant to E.O.
12630, Government Action and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights, is not required.
Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995
This rule does not contain any unfunded mandates to State, local,
or tribal governments or the private sector.
E.O. 12988
The DOI has certified to OMB that this proposed rule meets the
applicable civil justice reform standards provided in Sections 3(b)(2)
of E.O. 12988.
National Environmental Policy Act
MMS has examined the proposed rulemaking and has determined that
this rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment pursuant to Section
102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)).
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 256
Administrative practice and procedures, Continental shelf,
Environmental Protection, Government contracts, Mineral royalties, Oil
and gas exploration, Pipelines, Public lands--mineral resources, Public
lands--rights-of-way, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety
bonds.
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Minerals Management
Service proposes to amend 30 CFR parts 256 as follows:
PART 256-LEASING OF SULPHUR OR OIL OR GAS IN THE OUTER CONTINENTAL
SHELF
1. The authority citation for part 256 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.
2. In Sec. 256.37, paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 256.37 Lease term.
(a)(1) * * *
(2) If your oil and gas lease is in water depths of 400 meters or
more, it will have an initial lease term of at least 8 years but not
more than 10 years. The initial term for each lease will be stated in
the Final Notice of Sale.
(i) For leases issued before [the effective date of the final
rule], you must commence an exploratory well within the first 5 years
of the initial 8-year term or MMS will cancel the lease.
(ii) For leases issued on or after [the effective date of the final
rule], MMS will incorporate into the lease terms by
[[Page 28530]]
lease stipulation any drilling requirements.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-13989 Filed 6-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13904 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Public Workshop on the Rulemaking Priority Setting for the Appliance Standards Rulemaking Process
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28517-28518]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13904]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
10 CFR Part 430
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Public
Workshop on the Rulemaking Priority Setting for the Appliance Standards
Rulemaking Process
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of public workshop.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (the Department or DOE) will hold a
public workshop to discuss rulemaking priority setting for the
appliance standards rulemaking process. The Department is developing a
straw man list prioritizing the appliance standards rulemakings for
stakeholder review and comment. The Department will discuss issues that
should be considered in determining the rulemaking priority and the
order of priority proposed in the straw man listing. In addition, there
may be other issues the participants will want to address. All persons
are hereby given notice of the opportunity to attend the public
workshop.
DATES: The public workshop will be held on Friday, June 14, 1996, from
9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at the Embassy Row Hotel, 2015
Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington DC 20036, (202) 265-1600.
Copies of the straw man listing of appliance standards rulemakings
and this notice may be viewed at the DOE Freedom of Information Reading
Room, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-190, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-6020 between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4
p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE-43, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-0371
Douglas W. Smith, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel,
Forrestal Building, Mail Station GC-70, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0103, (202) 586-3410
Deborah E. Miller, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE-1,
1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-
8888.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department has initiated a comprehensive
process improvement effort to examine, through a series of stakeholder
meetings and interviews, issues surrounding the appliance standards
program. A workshop was held on March 19-20, 1996, to discuss the
initial findings from these meetings and interviews. Discussion topics
included the planning and prioritization process, data collection and
analysis, and decision making criteria. A preliminary draft report of
the ``Interim Results of the Appliance Rulemaking Process Improvement
Effort'' dated April 26, 1996, was circulated for review.
Based on the criteria discussed in the March workshop and addressed
in the preliminary draft report, the Department has developed a straw
man list prioritizing the appliance standards rulemakings for
stakeholder review and comment.
The Department will be holding a workshop on June 14, 1996, at the
Embassy Row Hotel in Washington D.C. to discuss issues that should be
considered in determining the rulemaking priority and the order of
priority proposed in the straw man listing. The finalized priority
listing will be published in the Department's Regulatory Agenda which
will be issued in October 1996.
The workshop will be professionally facilitated to encourage
discussion and comments on the topics.
Copies of the straw man listing and this notice are available in
the DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room. A copy of the workshop
transcript will be available in the DOE public reading room
approximately 10 days after the workshop.
The straw man listing will be sent to all participants that notify
the Department in advance that they will attend and to other interested
parties
[[Page 28518]]
requesting this listing. The Department welcomes written comments on
the proposed priority list. Written comments on the proposed priority
list must be received by July 26, 1996. Please notify Bryan Berringer
at the above listed address of your intention to attend the workshop or
if you expect to provide written comments.
Issued in Washington, DC on May 28, 1996.
Christine A. Ervin,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 96-13904 Filed 6-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13590 Common Crop Insurance Regulations; Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28512-28517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13590]
========================================================================
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. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 28512]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
7 CFR Part 457
RIN 0563-AB56
Common Crop Insurance Regulations; Texas Citrus Fruit Crop
Insurance Provisions
AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, Agriculture.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) proposes
specific crop provisions for the insurance of Texas citrus fruit. The
provisions will be used in conjunction with the Common Crop Insurance
Policy Basic Provisions, which contain standard terms and conditions
common to most crops. The intended effect of this action is to provide
policy changes to better meet the needs of the insured and combine the
current Texas Citrus Endorsement with the Common Crop Insurance Policy
for ease of use and consistency of terms.
DATES: Written comments, data, and opinions on this proposed rule will
be accepted until close of business July 5, 1996 and will be considered
when the rule is to be made final. The comment period for information
collections under the Paperwork Act of 1995 continues through August 5,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to
the Chief, Product Development Branch, Federal Crop Insurance
Corporation, United States Department of Agriculture, 9435 Holmes Road,
Kansas City, MO 64131. Written comments will be available for public
inspection and copying in room 0324, South Building, USDA, 14th and
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C., 8:15 a.m.-5:45 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Louise Narber, Program Analyst,
Research and Development Division, Product Development Branch, FCIC,
Kansas City, MO, address listed above, telephone (816) 926-7730.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order No. 12866 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1
This action has been reviewed under United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) procedures established by Executive Order No. 12866
and Departmental Regulation 1512-1. This action constitutes a review as
to the need, currency, clarity, and effectiveness of these regulations
under those procedures. The sunset review date established for these
regulations is April 30, 2001.
This rule has been determined to be not significant for the
purposes of Executive Order No. 12866 and, therefore, has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The information collection requirements contained in these
regulations were previously submitted to OMB pursuant to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) under OMB control number
0563-0003 through September 30, 1998.
The amendments set forth in this proposed rule do not contain
additional information collections that require clearance by OMB under
the provisions of 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
The title of this information collection is ``Catastrophic Risk
Protection Plan and Related Requirements including, Common Crop
Insurance Regulations; Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions.''
The information to be collected includes: a crop insurance acreage
report, an insurance application, and continuous contract. Information
collected from the acreage report and application is electronically
submitted to FCIC by the reinsured companies. Potential respondents to
this information collection are producers of Texas citrus fruit that
are eligible for Federal crop insurance.
The information requested is necessary for the reinsured companies
and FCIC to provide insurance and reinsurance, determine eligibility,
determine the correct parties to the agreement or contract, determine
and collect premiums or other monetary amounts, and pay benefits.
All information is reported annually. The reporting burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 16.9 minutes per
response for each of the 3.6 responses from approximately 1,755,015
respondents. The total annual burden on the public for this information
collection is 2,676,932 hours.
The comment period for information collections under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 continues for the following: (a) whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the
information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on respondents, including through the use
of automated collection techniques or other forms of information
gathering technology.
Comments regarding paperwork reduction should be submitted to the
Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. 20503 and to
Bonnie Hart, Advisory and Corporate Operations Staff, Regulatory Review
Group, USDA, Farm Service Agency, P.O. Box 2145, Ag Box 0570,
Washington, D.C. 20013-2415. Telephone (202) 690-2857. Copies of the
information collection may be obtained from Bonnie Hart at the above
stated address.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, FCIC
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures of State, local, or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section
[[Page 28513]]
205 of the UMRA generally requires FCIC to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least
costly, more cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule.
This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of title II of the UMRA) of State, local, and tribal
governments or the private sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Executive Order No. 12612
It has been determined under section 6(a) of Executive Order No.
12612, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient Federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The
provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct
effect on States or their political subdivisions, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Under the current regulations, an insured is
required to complete an application and acreage report. If the crop is
damaged or destroyed, the insured is required to give notice of loss
and provide the necessary information to complete a claim for
indemnity. An insured must use actual records of production or receive
a transitional yield. This regulation does not alter those
requirements. Therefore, the amount of work required of the insurance
companies and Farm Service Agency (FSA) offices delivering and
servicing these policies will not increase significantly from the
amount of work currently required. This rule does not have any greater
or lesser impact on the insured. Therefore, this action is determined
to be exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 605), and no Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was prepared.
Federal Assistance Program
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.450.
Executive Order No. 12372
This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order
No. 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and
local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V,
published at 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983.
Executive Order No. 12778
The Office of the General Counsel has determined that these
regulations meet the applicable standards provided in sections 2(a) and
2(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12778. The provisions of this rule will
not have a retroactive effect prior to the effective date. The
provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent
such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. The administrative
appeal provisions in 7 CFR parts 11 and 780 must be exhausted before
action for judicial review may be brought.
Environmental Evaluation
This action is not expected to have a significant impact on the
quality of the human environment, health, and safety. Therefore,
neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact
Statement is needed.
National Performance Review
This regulatory action is being taken as part of the National
Performance Review initiative to eliminate unnecessary or duplicative
regulations and improve those that remain in force.
Background
FCIC proposes to add to the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7
CFR part 457), a new section, 7 CFR Sec. 457.119, Texas Citrus Fruit
Crop Insurance Provisions. The provisions will be effective for the
1998 and succeeding crop years. The proposed provisions will replace
those found at 7 CFR Sec. 401.115 (Texas Citrus Endorsement). Upon
publication of 7 CFR Sec. 457.119 as a final rule, the provisions for
insuring Texas citrus fruit contained herein will supersede the current
provisions contained in 7 CFR Sec. 401.115. By separate rule, FCIC will
revise 7 CFR Sec. 401.115 to restrict its effect through the 1997 crop
year and later remove that section.
This rule makes minor editorial and format changes to improve the
Texas Citrus Crop Insurance Endorsement's compatibility with the Common
Crop Insurance Policy. In addition, FCIC is proposing substantive
changes in the provisions for insuring Texas citrus fruit as follows:
1. Section 1--Add definitions for ``days,'' ``direct marketing,''
``FSA,'' ``good farming practices,'' ``interplanted,'' ``irrigated
practice,'' ``local market price,'' ``production guarantee (per
acre),'' ``type,'' ``ton,'' and ``written agreement'' for clarification
purposes.
2. Section 1--Change the definitions for ``freeze,'' ``harvest,''
``hedged,'' ``non-contiguous land,'' and ``topped,'' for clarification.
3. Section 1--Delete the definition for ``frost'' because frost as
a cause of loss has been eliminated as unnecessary. The definition of
``freeze'' includes damage from frost. Also, replace the definition of
``excess moisture'' with ``excess rain'' for clarification.
4. Section 2--Add provisions to allow optional unit division by
section, section equivalent, or FSA Farm Serial Number, or by non-
contiguous land so that the unit structure will be the same in both the
Texas Citrus Fruit Provisions and the Texas Citrus Tree Provisions. The
previous provisions only allowed basic units to be divided into more
than one unit by section if each unit was non-contiguous.
5. Section 3(a)--Clarify that an insured may select one price
election for each citrus type, and that the price election selected for
each type need not bear the same percentage relationship to the maximum
price offered for each type. Since each type of Texas citrus fruit is
considered a separate crop, it should not be treated any differently
than any other crop with a separate price election. The insured may
select any available price election. However, if separate price
elections are available by variety within each type, the price
elections the insured chooses within the type must have the same
percentage relationship to the maximum price offered by the insurance
provider for each variety within the type.
6. Section 3(b)--Add a provision for a 1-year lag period for the
insured to report citrus production for Actual Production History (APH)
because all of the fruit will not be harvested until after the
production reporting date.
7. Section 3(c)--Add provisions for reporting the age and type, if
applicable, of any interplanted perennial crop, its planting pattern,
and any other information that the insurance provider requests in order
to establish the yield upon which the insurance guarantee is based. If
the producer fails to notify the insurance provider of any
circumstances that may cause the expected yield to fall below the yield
upon which the insurance guarantee is based, the insurance provider
will reduce the production guarantee at any time the insurance provider
becomes aware of the circumstances. This allows the insurance provider
to limit liability before insurance attaches based on the condition of
the citrus trees.
8. Section 3(d)--The yield upon which the guarantee is based will
be determined from APH yields unless previous damage requires
establishment of the yield based on the appraised yield
[[Page 28514]]
for the insured acreage. Currently the guarantee is based on crop
appraisals because a hard freeze severely damaged the citrus trees a
few years ago. Enough time has passed to determine the producers'
guarantee based on the producers' individual yield.
9. Section 5--Change the cancellation and termination dates from
November 30 to November 20 to be consistent with other perennial crops.
10. Section 6--Clarify that all premium computations will be based
on the final stage production guarantee.
11. Section 7--Include the insurable citrus type designations in
the Special Provisions rather than in the Texas Citrus Fruit
Provisions. This will prevent the need for an amendment to the Texas
Citrus Fruit Crop Provisions if it is later determined that additional
types need to be added. Also, eliminate the provision that requires
acceptable production records for the previous crop year for insurance
to attach. There is a 1 year lag period for reporting production.
12. Section 8--Add a provision making interplanted citrus insurable
if planted with another perennial crop unless after an inspection, the
insurance provider determines it does not meet insurability
requirements. This clause will make insurance available to more
producers and will reduce the number of acres for which coverage would
only be available under the noninsured crop disaster assistance program
(NAP).
13. Section 9--Change the beginning of the insurance period from
December 1 to November 21 to be consistent with other perennial crops.
However, for the 1st crop year for which insurance is sought, if the
application is accepted by the insurance provider after November 20,
insurance will attach on the 10th day after the application is received
in the insurance provider's local office. The current requirement that
insurance will not attach for 30 days after the application is received
if not received until after November 30, creates an unnecessary lag
time during which the crop is not covered. Add provisions to clarify
the procedure for insuring acreage when an insurable share is acquired
or relinquished on or before the acreage reporting date. Under the
current Texas Citrus Endorsement for acreage acquired (for which an
application is in place) on or before the acreage reporting date,
coverage would attach at the time the insurer considers the crop
inspection as being acceptable provided it was on or after November 30
(and not a late filed application and the first year of insurance). In
the same situation under these new provisions, coverage will have
started on November 21 (except for a late filed application and the 1st
year of insurance) even if the insurer considers the inspection as
being acceptable on January 14. Under the current Texas Citrus
Endorsement for acreage relinquished on or before the acreage reporting
date but after coverage had attached, the premium would still be due
from the insured even if the insured no longer had an insurable
interest. In the same situation under these new provisions, insurance
will not be considered to have attached so the premium will not be due
unless a transfer of right to an indemnity was completed.
14. Section 10--Add a clause clarifying that any failure of the
irrigation water supply must be caused by an insured peril occurring
during the insurance period. Delete ``frost'' as a cause of loss
because the definition of freeze also includes damage from frost. Also,
delete damage by Mediterranean Fruit Fly as an insurable cause and
specify that we will not insure against damage or loss of production
due to disease or insect infestation, unless an insured cause of loss
prevents the proper application of control measures, causes properly
applied control measures to be ineffective, or causes disease or insect
infestation for which no effective control mechanism is available.
15. Section 11--Require the producer to give notice at least 15
days before any production from any unit will be marketed directly to
consumers because insureds usually have inadequate records of such
marketing and an appraisal is necessary to accurately determine the
direct marketed production.
16. Section 12--Add a provision clarifying the procedure for when
the insured intends to abandon or not care for the acreage. If the
insured and the insurer agree on potential production on acreage the
insured wishes to abandon or no longer care for, the insurance period
for that acreage will end. If agreement is not reached, the claim may
be deferred if the insured agrees to continue to care for the crop. The
insurance provider will make another appraisal when the insured
notifies them of further damage or that harvest is general in the area
unless the crop is harvested, in which case the harvested production
will be used to determine the production to count. If the insured does
not continue to care for the crop the appraisal made prior to deferring
the claim will be used to determine the production to count. Also add a
provision to clarify that if individual records of juice content are
not available, the average juice content will be obtained from the
nearest juice plant, if available, or from an appraisal to determine
the average juice content. Delete the provision which allows the
contract price to be an applicable price for undamaged citrus fruit if
the contract was executed between the producer and buyer before damage
occurred because it allowed a potential for abuse and was seldom used.
17. Section 13--Add provisions for providing insurance coverage by
written agreement. FCIC has a long standing policy of permitting
certain modifications of the insurance contract by written agreement
for some policies. This amendment will extend this practice to Texas
citrus fruit and will make it possible to tailor the policy to a
specific insured in certain instances.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 457
Crop insurance, Texas citrus fruit.
Proposed Rule
Pursuant to the authority contained in the Federal Crop Insurance
Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the Federal Crop Insurance
Corporation hereby proposes to amend the Common Crop Insurance
Regulations (7 CFR part 457), effective for the 1998 and succeeding
crop years, as follows:
PART 457--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 457 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1506(l) and 1506(p).
2. A new Sec. 457.119 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 457.119 Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions
The Texas Citrus Fruit Crop Insurance Provisions for the 1998 and
succeeding crop years are as follows:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
TEXAS CITRUS FRUIT CROP PROVISIONS
If a conflict exists among the Basic Provisions (Sec. 457.8),
these crop provisions, and the Special Provisions, the Special
Provisions will control these crop provisions and the Basic
Provisions, and these crop provisions will control the Basic
Provisions.
1. Definitions
Crop year--The period beginning with the date insurance attaches
to the citrus crop and extends through normal harvest time, and will
be designated by the calendar year following the year in which the
bloom is normally set.
Days--Calendar days.
Direct marketing--Sale of the insured crop directly to consumers
without the intervention of an intermediary such as a wholesaler,
retailer, packer, processor,
[[Page 28515]]
shipper, or buyer. Examples of direct marketing include selling
through an on-farm or roadside stand or a farmer's market, and
permitting the general public to enter the field for the purpose of
picking all or a portion of the crop.
Excess rain--An amount of precipitation that damages the crop.
Excess wind--A natural movement of air that has sustained speeds
in excess of 58 miles per hour recorded at the U. S. Weather Service
reporting station nearest to the crop at the time of crop damage.
Freeze--The formation of ice in the cells of the tree or its
fruit caused by low air temperatures.
FSA--The Farm Service Agency, an agency of the United States
Department of Agriculture or any successor agency.
Good farming practices--The cultural practices generally in use
in the county for the crop to make normal progress toward maturity
and produce at least the yield used to determine the production
guarantee, and generally recognized by the Cooperative Extension
Service as compatible with agronomic and weather conditions in the
county.
Harvest--The severance of mature citrus fruit from the tree by
pulling, picking, or any other means, or by collecting marketable
fruit from the ground.
Hedged--A process of trimming the branches of the citrus trees
for better or more fruitful growth of the citrus fruit.
Interplanted--Acreage on which two or more crops are planted in
any form of alternating or mixed pattern.
Irrigated practice--A method of producing a crop by which water
is artificially applied during the growing season by appropriate
systems and at the proper times, with the intention of providing the
quantity of water needed to produce at least the yield used to
establish the irrigated production guarantee on the irrigated
acreage planted to the insured crop.
Local market price--The applicable citrus price per ton offered
by buyers in the area in which you normally market the insured crop.
Non-contiguous land--Any two or more tracts of land owned by
you, or rented by you for any consideration other than a share in
the insured crop, whose boundaries do not touch at any point. Land
that is separated by a public or private right-of way, waterway or
irrigation canal will be considered to be touching.
Production guarantee (per acre):
(a) First stage production guarantee--The second stage
production guarantee multiplied by 40 percent.
(b) Second stage production guarantee--The quantity of citrus
(in tons) determined by multiplying the approved yield per acre by
the coverage level percentage you elect.
Ton--Two thousand (2,000) pounds avoirdupois.
Topped--A process of trimming the upper most portion of the
citrus trees for better and more fruitful growth of the citrus
fruit.
Type--Classes of fruit with similar characteristics that are
grouped for insurance purposes as specified in the Special
Provisions.
Written agreement--A written document that alters designated
terms of a policy in accordance with section 13.
2. Unit Division
(a) A unit as defined in section 1 (Definitions) of the Basic
Provisions (Sec. 457.8), will be divided into basic units by each
citrus type designated in the Special Provisions.
(b) Unless limited by the Special Provisions, these basic units
may be divided into optional units if, for each optional unit you
meet all the conditions of this section or if a written agreement to
such division exists.
(c) Basic units may not be divided into optional units on any
basis including, but not limited to, production practice, type, and
variety, other than as described in this section.
(d) If you do not comply fully with these provisions, we will
combine all optional units that are not in compliance with these
provisions into the basic unit from which they were formed. We will
combine the optional units at any time we discover that you have
failed to comply with these provisions. If failure to comply with
these provisions is determined to be inadvertent, and the optional
units are combined, that portion of the premium paid for the purpose
of electing optional units will be refunded to you pro rata for the
units combined.
(e) All optional units must be identified on the acreage report
for each crop year.
(f) The following requirements must be met for each optional
unit:
(1) You must have records, which can be independently verified,
of acreage and production for each optional unit for at least the
last crop year used to determine your production guarantee;
(2) You must have records of marketed production or measurement
of stored production from each optional unit maintained in such a
manner that permits us to verify the production from each optional
unit, or the production from each unit must be kept separate until
loss adjustment is completed by us; and
(3) Each optional unit must meet one of the following criteria
as applicable:
(i) Optional Units by Section, Section Equivalent, or FSA Farm
Serial Number: Optional units may be established if each optional
unit is located in a separate legally identified section. In the
absence of sections, we may consider parcels of land legally
identified by other methods of measure including, but not limited to
Spanish grants, railroad surveys, leagues, labors, or Virginia
Military Lands, as the equivalent of sections for unit purposes. In
areas that have not been surveyed using the systems identified
above, or another system approved by us, or in areas where such
systems exist but boundaries are not readily discernible, each
optional unit must be located in a separate farm identified by a
single FSA Farm Serial Number; or
(ii) Optional Units on Acreage Located on Non-Contiguous Land:
In lieu of establishing optional units by section, section
equivalent or FSA Farm Serial Number, optional units may be
established if each optional unit is located on non-contiguous land.
3. Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels, and Prices for Determining
Indemnities
In addition to the requirements of section 3 (Insurance
Guarantees, Coverage Levels, and Prices for Determining Indemnities)
of the Basic Provisions (Sec. 457.8):
(a) You may select only 1 price election and coverage level for
each citrus fruit type designated in the Special Provisions that you
elect to insure. The price election you choose for each type need
not bear the same percentage relationship to the maximum price
offered by us for each type. For example, if you choose one hundred
percent (100%) of the maximum price election for early oranges, you
may choose seventy-five percent (75%) of the maximum price election
for late oranges. However, if separate price elections are available
by variety within each type, the price elections you choose within
the type must have the same percentage relationship to the maximum
price offered by us for each variety within the type.
(b) Instead of reporting your citrus production for the previous
crop year, as required by section 3 of the Basic Provisions
(Sec. 457.8), there is a one-year lag period. Each crop year you
must report your production from two crop years ago, e.g., on the
1998 crop year production report, you will provide your 1996 crop
year production.
(c) In addition to the reported production, each crop year you
must report by type:
(1) The number of trees damaged, topped, hedged, pruned or
removed; any change in practices that may reduce the expected yield
below the yield upon which the insurance guarantee is based; and the
number of affected acres;
(2) The number of bearing trees on insurable and uninsurable
acreage;
(3) The age of the trees and the planting pattern; and
(4) For the first year of insurance for acreage interplanted
with another perennial crop, and anytime the planting pattern of
such acreage is changed:
(i) The age of the interplanted crop, and type, if applicable;
(ii) The planting pattern; and
(iii) Any other information that we request in order to
establish your approved yield.
We will reduce the yield used to establish your production
guarantee as necessary, based on our estimate of the effect of the
following: interplanted perennial crop; removal, topping, hedging,
or pruning of trees; damage; and change in practices on the yield
potential of the insured crop. If you fail to notify us of any
circumstance that may reduce your yields from previous levels, we
will reduce your production guarantee as necessary at any time we
become aware of the circumstance.
(d) The yield used to compute your production guarantee will be
determined in accordance with Actual Production History (APH)
regulations, 7 CFR part 400, subpart G, and applicable policy
provisions unless previous damage or changes to the grove or trees
require establishment of the yield by another method. In the event
of such damage, your production guarantee will be established based
on our appraisal of the yield potential for the insured acreage.
(e) The production guarantee per acre is progressive by stage
and increases at specific
[[Page 28516]]
intervals to the final stage production guarantee. The stages and
production guarantees per acre are:
(1) The first stage extends from the date insurance attaches
through April 30 of the calendar year of normal bloom. The
production guarantee will be 40 percent of the yield calculated in
paragraph (d) of this section multiplied by your coverage level.
(2) The second or final stage extends from May 1 of the calendar
year of normal bloom until the end of the insurance period. The
production guarantee will be the yield calculated in paragraph (d)
of this section multiplied by your coverage level.
(f) Any acreage of citrus damaged to the extent that the
majority of producers in the area would not further maintain it will
be deemed to have been destroyed even though you may continue to
maintain it. The production guarantee for such acreage will be the
guarantee for the stage in which such damage occurs.
4. Contract Changes
In accordance with Section 4 (Contract Changes) of the Basic
Provisions (Sec. 457.8), the contract change date is August 31
preceding the cancellation date.
5. Cancellation and Termination Dates
In accordance with Section 2 (Life of Policy, Cancellation, and
Termination) of the Basic Provisions (Sec. 457.8), the cancellation
and termination dates are November 20.
6. Annual Premium
In lieu of the premium computation method in Section 7 (Annual
Premium) of the Basic Provisions (Sec. 457.8), the annual premium
amount is computed by multiplying the second stage production
guarantee per acre by the price election, the premium rate, the
insured acreage, your share at the time coverage begins, and by any
applicable premium adjustment percentages contained in the Special
Provisions.
7. Insured Crop
In accordance with Section 8 (Insured Crop) of the Basic
Provisions (Sec. 457.8), the crop insured will be all the acreage in
the county of each citrus type designated in the Special Provisions
that you elect to insure and for which a premium rate is provided by
the actuarial table:
(a) In which you have a share;
(b) That are types adapted to the area;
(c) That are irrigated;
(d) That has produced an average yield of at least three tons
per acre the previous year, unless the trees are inspected by us and
we agree in writing to insure such acreage with less potential; and
(e) That is grown in a grove that, if inspected, is considered
acceptable by us.
8. Insurable Acreage
In lieu of the provisions in Section 9 (Insurable Acreage) of
the Basic Provisions (Sec. 457.8), that prohibit insurance attaching
to a crop planted with another crop, citrus interplanted with
another perennial crop is insurable unless we inspect the acreage
and determine it does not meet the requirements for insurability
contained in these crop provisions.
9. Insurance Period
(a) In accordance with the provisions of section 11 (Insurance
Period) of the Basic Provisions (Sec. 457.8):
(1) Coverage begins on November 21 of each crop year except
that, for the first crop year, if the application is accepted by us
after November 20, insurance will attach on the 10th day after the
application is received in your insurance provider's local office.
(2) The calendar date for the end of the insurance period for
each crop year is May 31.
(b) In addition to the provisions of Section 11 (Insurance
Period) of the Basic Provisions (Sec. 457.8):
(1) If you acquire an insurable share in any insurable acreage
after coverage begins, but on or before the acreage reporting date
for the crop year, and after any inspection we consider the acreage
acceptable, insurance will be considered to have attached to such
acreage on the calendar date for the beginning of the insurance
period.
(2) If you relinquish your insurable share on any insurable
acreage of citrus on or before the acreage reporting date for the
crop year, insurance will not be considered to have attached to such
acreage for that crop year unless;
(i) A transfer of coverage and right to an indemnity, or a
similar form approved by us is completed by all affected parties;
and
(ii) We are notified by you or the transferee in writing of such
transfer on or before the acreage reporting date. If you relinquish
your share, no premium will be due and no indemnity paid unless a
transfer of coverage is properly executed.
10. Causes of Loss
(a) In accordance with the provisions of Section 12 (Causes of
Loss) of the Basic Provisions (Sec. 457.8), insurance is provided
only against the following causes of loss that occur within the
insurance period:
(1) Excess rain;
(2) Excess wind;
(3) Fire, unless weeds and other forms of undergrowth have not
been controlled or pruning debris has not been removed from the
grove;
(4) Freeze;
(5) Hail;
(6) Tornado;
(7) Wildlife; or
(8) Failure of the irrigation water supply, if caused by an
insured peril that occurs during the insurance period.
(b) In addition to the causes of loss excluded in Section 12
(Causes of Loss) of the Basic Provisions (Sec. 457.8), we will not
insure against damage or loss of production due to:
(1) Disease or insect infestation, unless a cause of loss
specified in section 10(a):
(i) Prevents the proper application of control measures or
causes properly applied control measures to be ineffective; or
(ii) Causes disease or insect infestation for which no effective
control mechanism is available; and
(2) Inability to market the citrus for any reason other than
actual physical damage from an insurable cause specified in this
section. For example, we will not pay you an indemnity if you are
unable to market due to quarantine, boycott, or refusal of any
person to accept production.
11. Duties in the Event of Damage or Loss
In addition to the requirements of Section 14 (Duties in the
Event of Damage or Loss) of the Basic Provisions (Sec. 457.8), you
must notify us at least 15 days before any production from any unit
will be marketed directly to consumers. We will conduct an appraisal
that will be used to determine your production to count for direct
marketed production. If damage occurs after this appraisal, we will
conduct an additional appraisal. These appraisals, and any
acceptable records provided by you, will be used to determine your
production to count. Failure to give timely notice that production
will be marketed directly to consumers will result in an appraised
amount of production to count that is not less than the production
guarantee per acre if such failure results in our inability to make
an accurate appraisal.
12. Settlement of Claim
(a) We will determine your loss on a unit basis. In the event
you are unable to provide production records:
(1) For any optional unit, we will combine all optional units
for which acceptable production records were not provided; or
(2) For any basic unit, we will allocate any commingled
production to such units in proportion to our liability on the
harvested acreage for each unit.
(b) In the event of loss or damage covered by this policy, we
will settle your claim on a unit basis by:
(1) Multiplying the insured acreage for each type crop by its
respective production guarantee (see sections 1 and 3);
(2) Multiplying each result in section 12(b)(1) by the
respective price election for each type, or variety within a type;
(3) Totaling the results in section 12(b)(2);
(4) Multiplying the total production to be counted of each type
or variety, if applicable, (see section 12(c)) by the respective
price election;
(5) Totaling the results of section 12(b)(4);
(6) Subtracting the total of section 12(b)(5) from the total in
paragraph (3); and
(7) Multiplying the result of section 12(b)(6) by your share.
(c) The total production to count (in tons) from all insurable
acreage on the unit will include:
(1) All appraised production as follows:
(i) Not less than the production guarantee per acre for acreage:
(A) That is abandoned;
(B) Marketed directly to consumers if you fail to meet the
requirements contained in section 11;
(C) Damaged solely by uninsured causes; or
(D) For which you fail to provide acceptable production records;
(ii) Production lost due to uninsured causes;
(iii) Unharvested production; and
(iv) Potential production on insured acreage you intend to
abandon or no longer care for, if you and we agree on the appraised
amount of production. Upon such agreement, the insurance period for
that acreage will end. If you do not agree with our appraisal,
[[Page 28517]]
we may defer the claim only if you agree to continue to care for the
crop. We will then make another appraisal when you notify us of
further damage or that harvest is general in the area unless you
harvested the crop, in which case we will use the harvested
production. If you do not continue to care for the crop, our
appraisal made prior to deferring the claim will be used to
determine the production to count; and
(2) All harvested production from the insurable acreage.
(d) Any citrus fruit that is not marketed as fresh fruit and,
due to insurable causes, does not contain 120 or more gallons of
juice per ton, will be adjusted by:
(1) Dividing the gallons of juice per ton obtained from the
damaged citrus by 120; and
(2) multiplying the result by the number of tons of such citrus.
If individual records of juice content are not available, an
average juice content from the nearest juice plant will be used, if
available. If not available, a field appraisal will be made to
determine the average juice content.
(e) Where the actuarial table provides for, and you elect, the
fresh fruit option, citrus fruit that is not marketable as fresh
fruit due to insurable causes will be adjusted by:
(1) Dividing the value per ton of the damaged citrus by the
price of undamaged citrus fruit; and
(2) Multiplying the result by the number of tons of such citrus
fruit.
The applicable price for undamaged citrus fruit will be the
local market price the week before damage occurred.
(f) Any production will be considered marketed or marketable as
fresh fruit unless, due solely to insured causes, such production
was not marketed as fresh fruit.
(g) In the absence of acceptable records of disposition of
harvested citrus fruit, the disposition and amount of production to
count for the unit will be the guarantee on the unit.
(h) Any citrus fruit on the ground that is not harvested will be
considered totally lost if damaged by an insured cause.
13. Written Agreements
Designated terms of this policy may be altered by written
agreement. The following conditions will apply:
(a) You must apply in writing for each written agreement no
later than the sales closing date, except as provided in paragraph
(e) of this section.
(b) The application for written agreement must contain all terms
of the contract between you and us that will be in effect if the
written agreement is not approved.
(c) If approved, the written agreement will include all variable
terms of the contract, including, but not limited to, crop type or
variety, the guarantee, premium rate, and price election.
(d) Each written agreement will only be valid for 1 year. If the
written agreement is not specifically renewed the following year,
insurance coverage for subsequent crop years will be in accordance
with the printed policy.
(e) An application for written agreement submitted after the
sales closing date may be approved if, after a physical inspection
of the acreage, it is determined that no loss has occurred and the
crop is insurable in accordance with the policy and written
agreement provisions.
Signed in Washington, D.C., on May 23, 1996.
Kenneth D. Ackerman,
Manager, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.
[FR Doc. 96-13590 Filed 6-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-FA-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.