issue-1996-07-10•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-07-10
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-07-10
issue-1996-07-10Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-07-10Proposed 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. 96-17599 Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; Bowling Green, KY
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36311-36312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17599]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ASO-13]
Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; Bowling Green, KY
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to amend the Class E2 airspace area at
Bowling Green, KY. An automated weather observing system has been
installed at the Bowling Green-Warren County Regional Airport. This
system transmits the required weather observations continuously to the
Memphis Air Route Traffic Control
[[Page 36312]]
Center, which is the controlling facility for the airport. Therefore,
the Class E2 surface area is amended from part time to continuous.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 24, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Federal
Aviation Administration, Docket No. 96-ASO-13, Manager, Operations
Branch, ASO-530, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel for Southern Region, Room 550, 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, Georgia 30337, telephone (404) 305-5586.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Benny L. McGlamery, Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal
Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320;
telephone (404) 305-5570.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-ASO-
13.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received before the specified closing
date for comments will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be
available for examination in the Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel
for Southern Region, Room 550, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park,
Georgia 30337, both before and after the closing date for comments. A
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration,
Manager, Operations Branch, ASO-530, Air Traffic Division, P.O. Box
20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320. Communications must identify the notice
number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing
list for future NPRMs should also request a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A which describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to Part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) to amend the Class E2 airspace
area at Bowling Green, KY. An automated weather observing system has
been installed at the Bowling Green-Warren County Regional Airport.
This system transmits the required weather observations continuously to
the Memphis Air Route Traffic Control Center, which is the controlling
facility for the airport. Therefore, the Class E2 surface area is
amended from part time to continuous. Class E airspace areas designated
as a surface area for an airport are published in Paragraph 6002 of FAA
Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[Amended]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace areas designated as a surface area
for an airport Docket No. 96-ASO-13
* * * * *
ASO KY E2 Bowling Green, KY [Revised]
Bowling Green-Warren County Regional Airport, KY
(lat. 36 deg.57'52'' N, long. 81 deg.12'08'' W)
Bowling Green VORTAC
(lat. 36 deg.55'43'' N, long. 86 deg.26'36'' W)
Within a 4.2-mile radius of Bowling Green-Warren County Regional
Airport and within 3.5 miles each side of Bowling Green VORTAC
206 deg. radial, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 7 miles
southwest of the VORTAC.
* * * * *
Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 26, 1996.
Benny L. McGlamery,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 96-17599 Filed 7-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17598 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Currituck, NC
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36312-36313]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17598]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ASO-16]
Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Currituck, NC
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to establish Class E airspace at
Currituck, NC. A GPS RWY 22 Standard Instrument Approach Procedure
(SIAP) has been developed for Currituck County Airport. Controlled
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface (AGL) is
needed to accommodate this SIAP and for instrument flight rules (IFR)
operations at Currituck County Airport. The
[[Page 36313]]
operating status of the airport will change from VFR to include IFR
operations concurrent with publication of this SIAP.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 26, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Federal
Aviation Administration, Docket No. 96-ASO-16, Manager, Operations
Branch, ASO-530, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel for Southern Region, Room 550, 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, Georgia 30337, telephone (404) 305-5586.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Benny L. McGlamery, Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal
Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320;
telephone (404) 305-5570.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-ASO-
16.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received before the specified closing
date for comments will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be
available for examination in the Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel
for Southern Region, Room 550, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park,
Georgia 30337, both before and after the closing date for comments. A
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration,
Manager, Operations Branch, ASO-530, Air Traffic Division, P.O. Box
20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320. Communications must identify the notice
number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing
list for future NPRMs should also request a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A which describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to Part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) to establish Class E airspace at
Currituck, NC. A GPS RWY 22 SIAP has been developed for Currituck
County Airport. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL
is needed to accommodate this SIAP and for IFR operations at Currituck
County Airport. The operating status of the airport will change from
VFR to include IFR operations concurrent with publication of this SIAP.
Class E airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from
700 feet or more above the surface are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document would be published
subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposed to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet above the surface of the earth
* * * * *
ASO GA E5 Currituck, NC [New]
Currituck County Airport, NC
(lat. 36 deg.23'56''N, long. 76 deg.00'59''W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Currituck County Airport.
* * * * *
Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 28, 1996.
Benny L. McGlamery,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 96-17598 Filed 7-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17596 Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; London, KY
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36313-36314]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17596]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ASO-14]
Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; London, KY
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to amend the Class E2 airspace area at
London, KY. An automated weather observing system is being installed at
the London-Corbin Airport-Magee Field. This system will transmit the
required weather observations continuously to the Indianapolis Air
Route Traffic Control Center, which is the controlling facility for the
airport. Therefore, the Class E2 surface area will be amended from part
time to continuous.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 24, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate: Federal
Aviation
[[Page 36314]]
Administration, Docket No. 96-ASO-14, Manager, Operations Branch, ASO-
530, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel for Southern Region, Room 550, 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, Georgia 30337, telephone (404) 305-5586.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Benny L. McGlamery, Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal
Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320;
telephone (404) 305-5570.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-ASO-
14.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received before the specified closing
date for comments will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be
available for examination in the Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel
for Southern Region, Room 550, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park,
Georgia 30337, both before and after the closing date for comments. A
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration,
Manager, Operations Branch, ASO-530, Air Traffic Division, P.O. Box
20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320. Communications must identify the notice
number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing
list for future NPRMs should also request a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A which describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to Part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Administration (14 CFR Part 71) to amend the Class E2 airspace
area at London, KY. An automated weather observing system is being
installed at the London-Corbin Airport-Magee Field. This system will
transmit the required weather observations continuously to the
Indianapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center, which is the controlling
facility for the airport. Therefore, the Class E2 surface area will be
amended from part time to continuous. Class E airspace areas designated
as a surface area for an airport are published in Paragraph 6002 of FAA
Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace areas designated as a surface area
for an airport
* * * * *
ASO KY E2 London, KY [Revised]
London-Corbin Airport-Magee Field, KY
(lat. 37 deg.05'14'' N, long. 84 deg.04'37'' W)
Within a 6-mile radius of London-Corbin airport-Magee Field.
* * * * *
Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 26, 1996.
Benny L. McGlamery,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 96-17596 Filed 7-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17595 Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; Smithfield, NC
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36314-36315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17595]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ASO-11]
Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; Smithfield, NC
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to amend the Class E airspace area at
Smithfield, NC. An amendment to the LOC/DME RWY 3 Standard Instrument
Approach Procedure (SIAP) has been developed for the Smithfield/
Johnston County Airport. An airspace review revealed that less
controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
(AGL) is needed to accommodate this SIAP amendment, the current NDB or
GPS RWY 22 SIAP and for IFR operations at the airport.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Federal
Aviation Administration, Docket No. 96-ASO-11, Manager, Operations
Branch, ASO-530, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel for Southern Region, Room 550, 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, Georgia 30337, telephone (404) 305-5586.
[[Page 36315]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Benny L. McGlamery, Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal
Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia Division,
Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta Georgia 30320;
telephone (404) 305-5570.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-ASO-
11.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received before the specified closing
date for comments will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be
available for examination in the Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel
for Southern Region, Room 550, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park,
Georgia 30337, both before and after the closing date for comments. A
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration,
Manager, Operations Branch, ASO-530, Air Traffic Division, P.O. Box
20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320. Communications must identify the notice
number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing
list for future NPRMs should also request a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A which describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to Part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) to amend the Class E airspace
area at Smithfield, NC. This proposal also makes a technical correction
to the airport name, changing it from the Johnston County Airport to
the Smithfield/Johnston County Airport. An airspace review revealed
that less controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface (AGL) is needed to accommodate a proposed amendment to the LOC/
DME RWY 3 SIAP, the current NDB or GPS RWY 22 SIAP and for IFR
operations at the Smithfield/Johnston County Airport. Class E airspace
designations for airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more
above the surface are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C
dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASO NC E5 Smithfield, NC [Revised]
Smithfield/Johnston Airport, NC
(lat. 35 deg.32'27'' N., long. 78 deg.23'25'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of the Smithfield/Johnston County Airport.
* * * * *
Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 21, 1996.
Benny L. McGlamery,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 96-17595 Filed 7-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17590 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Grafton, ND, Grafton Municipal Airport
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36315-36316]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17590]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-AGL-8]
Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Grafton, ND, Grafton
Municipal Airport
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to establish Class E airspace at Grafton,
North Dakota. A Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument
approach procedure (SIAP) to Runway 35 has been developed for the
Grafton Municipal Airport. Controlled airspace extending upward from
700 feet above ground level (AGL) is needed to contain aircraft
executing the approach. The intended effect of this proposal is to
provide segregation of aircraft using instrument approach procedures in
instrument conditions from other aircraft operating in visual weather
conditions.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 10, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, AGL-7,
Rules Docket No. 96-AGL-8, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines,
Illinois 60018.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation
[[Page 36316]]
Administration, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the Air Traffic Division, Operations Branch, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John A. Clayborn, Air Traffic
Division, Operations Branch, AGL-530, Federal Aviation Administration,
2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018, telephone (847)
294-7568.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-
AGL-8.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received on or before the specified
closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on
the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed
in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available
for examination in the Rules Docket, FAA, Great Lakes Region, Office of
the Assistant Chief Counsel, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines,
Illinois, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report
summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration,
Office of Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-230,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202)
267-3484. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's
should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which
describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Class E airspace at
Grafton, ND; this proposal would provide adequate Class E airspace for
operators executing the GPS Runway 35 SIAP at Grafton Municipal
Airport. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL is
needed to contain aircraft executing the approach. The intended affect
of this action is to provide segregation of aircraft using instrument
approach procedures in instrument conditions from other aircraft
operating in visual weather conditions. The area would be depicted on
appropriate aeronautical charts thereby enabling pilots to
circumnavigate the area or otherwise comply with IFR procedures. Class
E airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be
published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore this proposed regulation--(1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
AGL ND E5 Grafton, ND [New]
Grafton Municipal Airport, ND
(lat. 48 deg.24'17'' N, long. 97 deg.22'15'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of the Grafton Municipal Airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on June 20, 1996.
Maureen Woods,
Manager, Air Traffic Division.
[FR Doc. 96-17590 Filed 7-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17589 Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Torrington, WY
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36316-36317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17589]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ANM-017]
Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Torrington, WY
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would amend the Torrington, Wyoming, Class
E airspace to provide additional controlled airspace to accommodate a
Nondirectional Beacon (NDB) standard instrument approach procedure
(SIAP) at the Torrington Municipal Airport. The area would be depicted
on aeronautical charts for pilot reference.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 30, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager,
Operations Branch, ANM-530, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket No.
[[Page 36317]]
96-ANM-017, 1601 Lind Avenue S.W., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The official docket may be examined at the same address.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours at the address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James C. Frala, ANM-532.4, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket No.
96-ANM-017, 1601 Lind Avenue S.W., Renton, Washington 98055-4056;
telephone number: (206) 227-2535.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-
ANM-017.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received on or before the specified
closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on
the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed
in the light of comments received. All comments submitted will be
available for examination at the address listed above both before and
after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this
rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Branch, ANM-530,
1601 Lind Avenue S.W., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Communications
must identify the notice number of this NPRM. Persons interested in
being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should also request a
copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which describes the application
procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to amend Class E airspace at
Torrington, Wyoming, to provide additional controlled airspace for a
NDB SIAP at the Torrington Municipal Airport. The area would be
depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The coordinates
for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. Class E
airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface
of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated
August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ANM WY E5 Torrington, WY
Torrington Municipal Airport, WY
(lat. 42 deg.03'52''N, long. 104 deg.09'10''W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.7-mile radius of the Torrington Municipal Airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Seattle, Washington, on June 25, 1996.
Richard E. Prang,
Acting Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Division, Northwest Mountain
Region.
[FR Doc. 96-17589 Filed 7-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17578 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: National Emission Standard for Radon Emissions From Phosphogypsum Stacks
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 36326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17578]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 61
[FRL 5536-2]
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
National Emission Standard for Radon Emissions From Phosphogypsum
Stacks
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of extension of Public Comment Period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)is extending the
comment period for the rulemaking to reconsider 40 CFR 61.205 and 40
CFR 61.207 which appeared in the Federal Register on May 8, 1996 (61 FR
20775). The extension of the comment period is provided in response to
a request by a trade association representing the affected industry.
The public comment period for this proposed rule was to end on July 8,
1996. The comment period is extended to July 26, 1996.
DATES: EPA will continue to accept public comments on this proposed
rule until July 26, 1996. In addition, pursuant to Section 307(d)(5) of
the Clean Air Act, the public may submit rebuttal and supplemental
information to the docket for thirty (30) days after the August 1, 1996
public hearing. For more information on the public hearing, see 61 FR
33053 (June 26, 1996).
ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted, in duplicate, to: Central Docket
Section (6101), Environmental Protection Agency, ATTN: Air Docket No.
94-57, Washington, D.C. 20460. The docket is available for public
inspection between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:30 pm, Monday through
Friday, in Room M1500 of Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. The FAX number
is (202) 260-4400.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eleanor Thornton, or for technical
information, Rita Cestaric, at: Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
(6602J), Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460, (202)
233-9677. The proposed rule and supplementary information are located
in Air Docket No. 94-57.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 24, 1994, EPA announced its
decision concerning a petition by The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
seeking reconsideration of a June 3, 1992 final rule revising the
National Emission Standard for Radon Emissions from Phosphogypsum
Stacks, 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart R. EPA partially granted and partially
denied the TFI petition. Pursuant to that decision, EPA convened a
rulemaking to reconsider 40 CFR 61.205, the provision of the final rule
which governs distribution and use of phosphogypsum for research and
development, and the methodology used under 40 CFR 61.207 to establish
the average radium-226 concentration for phosphogypsum to be removed
from the phosphogypsum stack. See 61 FR 20775 (May 8, 1996) for a more
detailed description of the proposed rule.
Reopening of comment period: The Comment Period for this proposed
rule was scheduled to end on July 8, 1996. EPA received a request to
extend the period to submit comments from TFI. After considering this
request, EPA has decided to extend the comment period for this
rulemaking to July 26, 1996.
Dated: July 5, 1996.
Richard D. Wilson,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 96-17578 Filed 7-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17577 Polyvinylpyrrolidone Butylated Polymer; Tolerance Exemption
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36331-36333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17577]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 6E4644/P668; FRL-5380-5]
RIN 2070-AC18
Polyvinylpyrrolidone Butylated Polymer; Tolerance Exemption
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to establish an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of polyvinylpyrrolidone
butylated polymer when used as an inert ingredient (surfactants,
related adjuvant of surfactants and binder) in pesticide formulations
applied to growing crops, raw agricultural commodities after harvest,
and applied to animals. This proposed regulation was requested by
International Specialty Products.
DATES: Written comments, identified by the document control number [PP
6E4644/P668], must be received on or before August 9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, deliver comments to: Rm. 1132, CM #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202. Information submitted
as a comment concerning this document may be claimed confidential by
marking any part or all of that information as ``Confidential Business
Information'' (CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
comment that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in
the public record. Information not marked confidential will be included
in the public docket by EPA without prior notice. All written comments
will be available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the address
given above, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII file format.
All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the
docket number [PP 6E4644/P668]. No Confidential Business Information
(CBI) should be submitted through e-mail. Electronic comments on this
proposed rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Additional information on electronic submissions can be found in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Bipin Gandhi, Registration
Support Branch, Registration Division (7505W), Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and
telephone number: 2800 Crystal Drive, North Tower, 6th Floor,
Arlington, VA 22202, 703-308-8380, e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: International Specialty Products, 1361 Alps
Road, Wayne, NJ 07470, submitted pesticide petition (PP) 6E4644 to EPA
requesting that the Administrator, pursuant to section 408(e) of the
Federal Food Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C. 346 a(e)),
propose to amend 40 CFR 180.1001(c) and (e) by exempting
polyvinylpyrrolidone butylated polymer (CAS No. 26160-96-3) when used
as an inert ingredient (surfactants, related adjuvant of surfactants
and binder) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or to
raw agricultural commodities after harvest, under 40 CFR 180.1001(c)
and applied to animals under 40 CFR 180.1001(e) and deleting the
current exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR
180.1001(d) for application to growing crops only. Inert ingredients
are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40
CFR 153.125, and include, but are not limited to, the following types
of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their
own): solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as
polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and
diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified
cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in
aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The
term ``inert'' is not to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may
not be chemically active.
The data submitted in the petition and other relevant material have
been evaluated. As part of the EPA policy statement on inert
ingredients published in the Federal Register of April 22, 1987 (52 FR
13305), the Agency set forth a list of studies which would generally be
used to evaluate the risks posed by the presence of an inert ingredient
in a pesticide formulation. However, where it can be determined without
that data that the inert ingredient will present minimal or no risk,
the Agency
[[Page 36332]]
generally does not require some or all of the listed studies to rule on
the proposed tolerance or exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
for an inert ingredient. The Agency has decided that no data, in
addition to that described below, for polyvinylpyrrolidone butylated
polymer will need to be submitted. The rationale for this decision is
described below.
In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as
``polymers,'' the Agency has established a set of criteria which
identify categories of polymers that present low risk. These criteria
(described in 40 CFR 723.250) identify polymers that are relatively
unreactive and stable compared to other chemical substances as well as
polymers that typically are not readily absorbed. These properties
generally limit a polymer's ability to cause adverse effects. In
addition, these criteria exclude polymers about which little is known.
The Agency believes that polymers meeting the criteria noted above will
present minimal or no risk. Polyvinylpyrrolidone, butylated polymer
conforms to the definition of polymer given in 40 CFR 723(b) and meets
the following criteria that are used to identify low risk polymers:
1. Polyvinylpyrrolidone, butylated polymer is not a cationic
polymer, nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer
in a natural aquatic environment.
2. Polyvinylpyrrolidone, butylated polymer contains as an integral
part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,
and nitrogen.
3. Polyvinylpyrrolidone, butylated polymer does not contain as an
integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any elements
other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
4. Polyvinylpyrrolidone, butylated polymer is not designed, nor it
is reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose or
depolymerize.
5. Polyvinylpyrrolidone, butylated polymer is not manufactured or
imported from monomers and /or other reactants that are not already
included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under
an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
6. The minimum number-average molecular weight of
polyvinylpyrrolidone, butylated polymer is listed as 9,569 daltons.
Substances with molecular weights greater than 400 generally are not
absorbed through the intact skin, and substances with molecular weights
greater than 1,000 generally are not absorbed through the intact
gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Chemicals not absorbed through the skin or
GI tract generally are incapable of eliciting a toxic response.
7. Polyvinylpyrrolidone, butylated polymer has a number average
molecular weight of 9,569 and contains less than 10 percent oligomeric
material below molecular weight 500 and less than 25 percent oligomeric
material below 1,000 molecular weight.
8. Polyvinylpyrrolidone, butylated polymer does not contain
reactive functional groups that are intended or reasonably anticipated
to undergo further reaction. Based on the above information and review
of its use, EPA has found that, when used in accordance with good
agricultural practice, this ingredient is useful and tolerance is not
necessary to protect the public health and to reclassify this product
from 40 CFR 180.1001(d) to 40 CFR 180.1001(c) and (e). Therefore, EPA
proposes that the exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance be
established for this polymer as set forth below.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, that contains any of the
ingredients listed herein, may request within 30 days after the
publication of this document in the Federal Register that this
rulemaking proposal be referred to an Advisory Committee in accordance
with section 408(e) of the FFDCA.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
proposed regulation. Comments must bear a notation indicating the
document control number, [PP 6E4644/P668].
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [PP 6E4644/P668] (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed paper versions of electronic comments, which does not
include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
opp-D[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will be placed in the paper copies
of the official rulemaking record which also will include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the address in the ``ADDRESSES'' at the
beginning of this document.
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 2 of Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose any enforceable duty, or contain any
``unfunded mandates'' as described in Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), or require prior consultation as
specified by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993),
entitled Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, or special
consideration as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994).
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 (Title II of Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847), EPA submitted
a report containing this rule and other required information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller
General of the General Accounting Office prior to publication of the
rule in today's Federal Register. This rule is (is not) a ``major
rule'' asdefined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2) of the APA as amended.
Pursuant to the requirement of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub.
L. 96- 354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator has
determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have an economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. A certification statement explaining the basis for this
determination was published in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46
FR 24950).
List of Subject in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Food additives, Pesticides and pests,
Processed foods, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
[[Page 36333]]
Dated: July 2, 1996.
Peter Caulkins,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be amended as
follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. In Sec. 180.1001 the table in paragraph (c) and (e) is amended
by adding alphabetically the inert ingredient, to read as set forth
below, and the table in paragraph (d) is amended by removing the entry
for ``Polyvinylpyrrolidone butylated,'' follows:
Sec. 180.1001 Exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inert Ingredient Limits Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Polyvinylpyrrolidone butylated Surfactants, related
polymer, minimum number-average adjuvant of
molecular weight (in amu) 9,500. surfactants and
binder.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inert Ingredient Limits Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Polyvinylpyrrolidone butylated Surfactants, related
polymer, minimum number-average adjuvant of
molecular weight (in amu) 9,500. surfactants and
binder.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-17577 Filed 7-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17575 Maleic Anhydride-Diisobutylene Copolymer, Sodium Salt; Tolerance Exemption
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36329-36331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17575]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-300425; FRL-5374-3]
RIN 2070-AC18
Maleic Anhydride-Diisobutylene Copolymer, Sodium Salt; Tolerance
Exemption
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to establish an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of maleic anhydride-
diisobutylene copolymer, sodium salt when used as an inert ingredient
(suspending agent and dispersing agent) in pesticide formulations
applied to growing crops, raw agricultural commodities after harvest,
and applied to animals. This proposed regulation was requested by
Rhone-Poulenc North America Chemicals, Inc.
DATES: Written comments, identified by the docket number [OPP-300425],
must be received on or before August 9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, deliver comments to: Rm. 1132, CM #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202. Information submitted
as a comment concerning this document may be claimed confidential by
marking any part or all of that information as ``Confidential Business
Information'' (CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
comment that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in
the public record. Information not marked confidential will be included
in the public docket by EPA without prior notice. All written comments
will be available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the Virginia
address given above, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII file format.
All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the
docket number [OPP-300425]. No Confidential Business Information (CBI)
should be submitted through e-mail. Electronic comments on this
proposed rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Additional information on electronic submissions can be found below in
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Bipin Gandhi, Registration
Support Branch, Registration Division (7505W), Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and
telephone number: 2800 Crystal Drive, North Tower, 6th Floor,
Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 308-8380, e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Rhone-Poulenc North America Chemicals, Inc.,
CN 5255, Princeton, NJ 08543-5255 submitted pesticide petition (PP)
6E04665 to EPA requesting that the Administrator, pursuant to section
408(e) of the Federal Food Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C.
346 a(e)), propose to amend 40 CFR 180.1001(c), (d) and (e) by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without
limitation for residues of maleic anhydride-diisobutylene copolymer,
sodium salt (CAS Reg. No. 37199-81-1), when used as an inert ingredient
(suspending agent and dispersing agent) in pesticide formulations
applied to growing crops or to raw agricultural commodities after
harvest, under 40 CFR 180.1001(c) and applied to animals under 40 CFR
180.1001(e), and deleting the current exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance with a use limitation of 3 percent under 40 CFR 1001(d) for
application to growing crops only.
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125, and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not to imply nontoxicity; the
ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
The data submitted in the petition and other relevant material have
been evaluated. As part of the EPA policy statement on inert
ingredients published in the Federal Register of April 22, 1987 (52 FR
13305), the Agency set forth a list of studies which would generally be
used to evaluate the risks posed by the presence of an inert ingredient
in a pesticide formulation. However, where it can be determined without
that data that the inert ingredient will present minimal or no risk,
the Agency generally does not require some or all of the listed studies
to rule on the proposed tolerance or exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance for an inert ingredient. The Agency has decided that no
data, in addition to that described below, for maleic anhydride-
diisobutylene copolymer, sodium salt will need to be submitted. The
rationale for this decision is described below.
In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as
``polymers,'' the Agency has established a set of criteria which
identify categories of polymers that present low risk. These criteria
(described in 40 CFR 723.250) identify polymers that are relatively
unreactive and stable compared to other chemical substances as well as
polymers that typically are not readily absorbed. These properties
generally limit a polymer's ability to cause adverse effects. In
addition, these criteria exclude polymers about which little is known.
The Agency believes that polymers meeting the criteria noted above will
present minimal or no risk. Maleic anhydride-diisobutylene copolymer,
sodium salt conforms to the definition of polymer given in 40 CFR
723.250(b) and meets the following
[[Page 36330]]
criteria that are used to identify low risk polymers:
1. Maleic anhydride-diisobutylene copolymer, sodium salt is not a
cationic polymer, nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic
polymer in a natural aquatic environment.
2. Maleic anhydride-diisobutylene copolymer, sodium salt contains
as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon,
hydrogen, oxygen, and sodium.
3. Maleic anhydride-diisobutylene copolymer, sodium salt does not
contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities,
any elements other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
4. Maleic anhydride-diisobutylene copolymer, sodium salt is not
designed, nor it is reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade,
decompose or depolymerize.
5. Maleic anhydride-diisobutylene copolymer, sodium salt is not
manufactured or imported from monomers and/or other reactants that are
not already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or
manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
6. Maleic anhydride-diisobutylene copolymer, sodium salt is not
water absorbing polymer.
7. The minimum number-average molecular weight of maleic anhydride-
diisobutylene copolymer, sodium salt is 20,900 daltons. Substances with
molecular weights (MW) greater than 400 generally are not absorbed
through the intact skin, and substances with MW greater than 1,000
generally are not absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal (GI)
track. Chemicals not absorbed through the skin or GI tract generally
are incapable of eliciting a toxic response.
8. Maleic anhydride-diisobutylene copolymer, sodium salt has a
number average molecular weight of 20,900 and an oligomer content less
than 2 percent below MW 500 and less than 5 percent MW 1000.
Based on the above information and review of its use, EPA has found
that, when used in accordance with good agricultural practice, this
ingredient is useful and tolerance is not necessary to protect the
public health. Therefore, EPA proposes that the exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance be established for this polymer as set forth
below.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, that contains any of the
ingredients listed herein, may request within 30 days after the
publication of this document in the Federal Register that this
rulemaking proposal be referred to an Advisory Committee in accordance
with section 408(e) of the FFDCA.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
proposed regulation. Comments must bear a notation indicating the
docket number, [OPP-300425].
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [OPP-300425] (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed paper versions of electronic comments, which does not
include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
opp-D[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the address in the ``ADDRESSES'' at the
beginning of this document.
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 2 of Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose any enforceable duty, or contain any
``unfunded mandates'' as described in Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), or require prior consultation as
specified by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993),
entitled Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, or special
consideration as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994).
Pursuant to the requirement of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub.
L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator has
determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have an economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. A certification statement to this effect was published in the
Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subject in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Food additives, Pesticides and pests,
Processed foods, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 1, 1996.
Peter Caulkins,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be amended as
follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. In Sec. 180.1001, paragraphs (c) and (e), the table in each
paragraph is amended by adding alphabetically the inert ingredient
``Maleic anhydride-dissobutylene copolymer, sodium salt (CAS Reg. No.
37199-81-8), average molecular weight (in amu) 18,000,'' to read as set
forth below, and the table in paragraph (d) is amended by removing the
entry for ``Maleic anhydride dissobutylene copolymer, sodium salt.''
Sec. 180.1001 Exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
[[Page 36331]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inert Ingredient Limits Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Maleic anhydride-dissobutylene Suspending agent and
copolymer, sodium salt (CAS Reg. dispersing agent.
No. 37199-81-8), average
molecular weight (in amu) 18,000..
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(e) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inert Ingredient Limits Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Maleic anhydride-dissobutylene Suspending agent and
copolymer, sodium salt (CAS Reg. dispersing agent.
No. 37199-81-8), average
molecular weight (in amu) 18,000.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-17575 Filed 7-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17551 A Public Meeting on Method Flexibility and Streamlining Approval of Analytical Methods at 40 CFR Part 136
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36328-36329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17551]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 136
[FRL-5535-4]
A Public Meeting on Method Flexibility and Streamlining Approval
of Analytical Methods at 40 CFR Part 136
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Science and Technology within EPA's Office of
Water is conducting a public meeting on approaches to method
flexibility and streamlining the proposal and promulgation of
analytical methods at 40 CFR Part 136 under Section 304(h) of the Clean
Water Act and at 40 CFR Part 141 under Sections 1401 and 1445 of the
Safe Drinking Water Act. This public meeting on streamlining EPA's
water methods approval programs will be held in conjunction with the
Trace Metals Workshop announced concurrently in the Federal Register.
This public meeting follows a series of three public meetings on
streamlining held in Seattle, Washington on September 28, 1995, in
Boston, Massachusetts on January 25, 1996, and in Chicago, Illinois on
February 14, 1996. The Seattle meeting was announced in an FR notice
titled, ``A Public Meeting and Availability of Documents on
Streamlining Approval of Analytical Methods at 40 CFR Part 136 and
flexibility in Existing Test Methods'' [FRL-5294-6] published in the
Federal Register on September 12, 1995 at 60 FR 47325. This FR notice
provided extensive supplementary information regarding the 304(h)
streamlining effort and made available several supporting documents.
The supporting documents and summaries of the Seattle, Boston, and
Chicago public meetings can be obtained through the contact identified
in this notice.
DATES: EPA will conduct the public meeting on 304(h) streamlining on
Wednesday, July 24, 1996, in Denver, Colorado. Registration for the
meeting will begin at 8 a.m. The meeting will be held from 9 a.m. to 5
p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the USGS Lecture Hall, Building
25, Denver Federal Center, 6th & Kipling, Denver, Colorado.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning this notice can
be directed to Marion Thompson by phone at (202) 260-7117 or by
facsimile at (202) 260-7185.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meeting arrangements are being coordinated
by DynCorp, Inc. For information on registration, contact Cindy
Simbanin, 300 N. Lee Street, Suite 500, Alexandria, VA 22314. Phone:
(703) 519-1386. Facsimile number: (703) 684-0610. Space is limited and
reservations are being taken on a first come, first served basis. No
fees will be charged to attend.
Hotel reservations may be made by contacting the Comfort Suites in
Lakewood, Colorado at (303) 231-9929. The hotel address is 11909 W. 6th
Avenue, Lakewood, Colorado 80033. Single occupancy guest rates are
$83.55, including tax. When making reservations, you must specify that
you are affiliated with the EPA Meeting to qualify for the quoted rate.
Accommodations are limited, so please make your reservations early.
The Comfort Suites does not provide transportation to/from the airport
or to the Federal Center. Guests should take the Airport shuttle to/
from the airport and use taxi service to the Federal Center. The
Federal Center is within walking distance of the Comfort Suites, but it
is not an easy walk due to the location of the main gate into the
Federal Center.
Title: A Public Meeting on Method Flexibility and Streamlining
Approval of Analytical Methods at 40 CFR Part 136
Abstract
Under Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act, EPA is responsible for
promulgating analytical methods at 40 CFR Part 136 for use in
monitoring pollutant discharges. EPA uses these methods to support
development of effluent guidelines promulgated at 40 CFR Parts 400-499,
and both EPA and the regulated community use the methods for
establishing compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits and other monitoring purposes. The methods
approved for use at 40 CFR Part 136 have been developed by EPA, by
industrial associations such as the American Society for Testing
Materials, and by other governmental agencies such as the U.S.
Geological Survey. In the past, the methods proposal and promulgation
process has been cumbersome, and has not provided the flexibility to
take advantage of new analytical technologies in a timely manner. In
response to the Administration's Environmental Technology Initiative,
EPA is proposing a comprehensive Section 304(h) streamlining initiative
to increase method flexibility to allow use of emerging technologies
and to expedite the method approval process, to encourage development
of new methods and technologies by organizations outside of EPA.
The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water within EPA's Office
of Water is also developing approaches to increasing method flexibility
and streamlining the approval of analytical methods at 40 CFR Part 141
under Sections 1401 and 1445 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA is
coordinating these efforts with the CWA Section 304(h) streamlining
effort in an overall initiative to streamline its water methods
approval programs.
EPA has held three public meetings to outline plans for method
flexibility and for streamlining proposal and promulgation of new
methods, and to elicit stakeholder views regarding these plans. EPA had
compiled and evaluated stakeholder input received at the public
meetings and has revised its approach to streamlining accordingly.
Agenda Topics
The purpose of the public meetings on 304(h) streamlining is to
outline plans for method flexibility and for streamlining proposal and
promulgation of new methods at 40 CFR Part 136 under Section 304(h) of
the Clean Water Act, and to elicit stakeholder views regarding these
plans. The following topics will be addressed at the public meetings:
Increasing method flexibility to allow use of new
technologies and to identify modifications that are acceptable within
the scope of existing methods and do not require proposal of an
alternate method
--Interpretation of flexibility in existing 40 CFR Part 136 methods
--Advantages and disadvantages of method flexibility (no flexibility,
limited flexibility, and unlimited flexibility)
--Proposal to allow nearly unlimited ``front-end'' method modifications
as long as the determinative technique is not changed and method
performance is demonstrated to be equivalent
Establishing standardized quality control (QC) and QC
acceptance criteria to support determination of method equivalency
Streamlining the method proposal process to take advantage
of emerging analytical technologies in a timely manner
--Standardized format for preparing new methods
[[Page 36329]]
--Three-tiered method validation process based on method use
--OST coordination of method submission and approval
Harmonization of 40 CFR Part 136 methods with other EPA
methods to allow standardization of methods across EPA programs
Other streamlining issues
--Standardized data elements for reporting, to allow access to Agency
databases in a standardized data format
--Withdrawal of 40 CFR Part 136 methods that contain outdated
technologies
--Incorporating new methods into the Federal Register by reference and
making them available through other suitable venues, to reduce
publication expense
Dated: July 3, 1996.
James Hanlon,
Deputy Director, Office of Science and Technology.
[FR Doc. 96-17551 Filed 7-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17546 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Disapproval of 15 Percent Reasonable-Further-Progress Plan for the Philadelphia Area
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36320-36326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17546]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[PA 04-9-4028; FRL-5535-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Disapproval of 15 Percent Reasonable-Further-Progress
Plan for the Philadelphia Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to disapprove the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (for the
Philadelphia ozone nonattainment area) to meet the 15 percent
reasonable further progress (RFP, or 15% plan), also known as rate-of-
progress (ROP) requirements of the Clean Air Act. EPA is proposing
disapproval because the 15 percent plan submitted by Pennsylvania for
the Philadelphia area assumes credit towards ROP for numerous control
strategies which are either not fully adopted, are not creditable
towards ROP under the Clean Air Act, or have not been adequately
quantified. EPA cannot approve these reductions towards the 15% plan,
thus causing a ``shortfall'' towards Pennsylvania's RFP demonstration.
Therefore, the Commonwealth has not demonstrated sufficient reductions
of volatile organic compounds (VOC) to meet the RFP requirements of the
Clean Air Act. Finally, the 1990 emissions inventory estimates used in
the 15% plan as the baseline for reasonable further progress differs
substantially from Pennsylvania's separate 1990 base year emission
inventory SIP submittal. Without justification of these differences,
EPA cannot approve the revised inventory estimates.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be postmarked by September
9, 1996..
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be mailed to Kathleen Henry, Acting
Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide, and Mobile Sources Section, Mailcode
3AT21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency--Region III, 841 Chestnut
Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107. Copies of the documents
relevant to this action are available for public inspection during
normal business hours at the Air, Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107. Persons interested in examining these
documents should schedule an appointment with the contact person
(listed below) at least 24 hours before the visiting day. Copies of the
documents relevant to this action are also available at the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air
Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian K. Rehn, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
and Mobile Sources Section (3AT21), USEPA--Region III, 841 Chestnut
Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, or by telephone at:
(215)566-2176. Questions may also be addressed via e-mail, at the
following address: Rehn.B[email protected] [Please note that only
written comments can be accepted for inclusion in the docket.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 182(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (the Act), as amended in
1990, requires ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or
above to develop plans to reduce VOC emissions by fifteen percent from
the 1990 baseline inventory for the area. These ``15% plans'' were due
to be submitted to EPA by November 15, 1993, with the reductions to
occur within 6 years of enactment (i.e. November 15, 1996).
Furthermore, the Clean Air Act sets limitations on the creditability of
certain control measures towards reasonable further progress.
Specifically, States cannot take credit for reductions achieved by
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) measures (e.g. new car
emissions standards) promulgated prior to 1990; or for reductions
stemming from regulations promulgated prior to 1990 to lower the
volatility (i.e., Reid Vapor Pressure) of gasoline. Furthermore, the
Act does not allow credit towards RFP for post-1990 corrections to
existing motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs or
corrections to reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules,
since these programs were required to be in-place prior to 1990.
Additionally, section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act requires
``contingency measures'' to be included in the plan revision. These
measures are required to
[[Page 36321]]
be implemented immediately if reasonable further progress is not
achieved, or if the NAAQS standard is not attained under the deadlines
set forth in the Clean Air Act.
In Pennsylvania, three nonattainment areas are subject to the Clean
Air Act 15 Percent rate-of-progress requirements. These are the
Philadelphia severe nonattainment area, the Pittsburgh moderate
nonattainment area, and the Reading moderate nonattainment area. On
July, 19, 1995, EPA published, in the Federal Register, a final rule
waiving the 15% rate-of-progress requirements for the Pittsburgh and
Reading moderate ozone nonattainment areas. The basis for that action
was a May 10, 1995, EPA policy memo allowing such ``waivers'' for areas
having ambient monitoring data which demonstrated compliance with the
ozone standard. On June 4, 1996, EPA revoked the waiver for the
Pittsburgh area, and reinstated the 15% plan requirement. Pennsylvania
submitted separate SIP revisions for Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. The
15% plan for the Philadelphia area (Philadelphia 15% plan) was
submitted by Pennsylvania on November 15, 1994, and was re-submitted on
January 18, 1995. The Philadelphia metropolitan area includes counties
in New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, as well as Pennsylvania, all of
which must demonstrate reasonable further progress. However,
Pennsylvania is only responsible for achieving RFP within the
Pennsylvania portion of that metropolitan area. The Commonwealth did
not enter an agreement with the other states which comprise the metro
Philadelphia area to do a multi-state 15% plan, and submitted only a
plan to reduce Pennsylvania's contribution by fifteen percent. EPA is
taking action today only on Pennsylvania's 15% plan submittal, which
addresses only the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia
metropolitan area. EPA will act separately on the Pittsburgh 15% plan,
at a later date.
EPA has reviewed the January 18, 1995 Philadelphia area 15% plan
submittal and has identified several significant deficiencies, which
prohibit approval of this SIP, per section 110 of the Clean Air Act. A
detailed discussion of these deficiencies is included below, in the
``Analysis'' portion of this rulemaking action, and also in the
technical support document (TSD) for this action. Due to these
deficiencies, the 15 percent plan, and the associated contingency
measure plan, will not achieve the total reductions required by the
rate-of-progress requirements of the Act. Therefore, EPA is proposing
disapproval of the plan. This action in no way implies disapproval, or
any other action, with respect to the individual control measures
utilized in the 15% plan or the contingency plan.
Today's action addresses only the approvability of measures towards
the reasonable further progress requirement of the Act, and does not
address whether the control measures or inventories included in the 15%
plan comply with any specific underlying requirements of the Act. For
further information regarding EPA's analysis of the Commonwealth's
submittal, please refer to the TSD for this action (found in the
official docket). A summary of the EPA's findings follows.
Analysis of the SIP Revision
Base Year Emission Inventory
The baseline from which states must determine the required
reductions for 15 percent planning is the 1990 base year emission
inventory. The inventory is broken down into several emissions source
categories: stationary, area, on-road mobile sources, and off-road
mobile sources. Pennsylvania submitted a formal SIP revision containing
their official 1990 base year emission inventory on November 12, 1992.
EPA has not yet taken rulemaking action on that inventory submittal.
There are significant differences between the source categories in the
officially submitted 1990 base year inventory and those contained in
the 1990 base year inventory in the Philadelphia 15% plan, although
total VOC emissions do not substantially vary. The Commonwealth did not
acknowledge the inconsistencies in the 15% plan inventory, nor did the
Commonwealth attempt to substantiate these differences. Furthermore,
the base year inventory in the 15% plan lacks sufficient detail for EPA
to accept it as a replacement for the official 1990 base year inventory
SIP revision. Nor has Pennsylvania requested EPA to do so. Refer to the
TSD for a specific comparison of the inventories. EPA intends to
conduct separate rulemaking action on Pennsylvania's 1990 inventory
submittal, at a later date.
Growth in Emissions Between 1990 and 1996
EPA has interpreted the Clean Air Act to require that reasonable
further progress towards attainment of the ozone standard must be
obtained after offsetting any growth expected to occur over that
period. Therefore, to meet the 15% RFP requirement, a state must enact
measures achieving sufficient emissions reductions to offset projected
growth in emissions, in addition to a 15 percent reduction of VOC
emissions. Thus, an estimate of emissions growth from 1990 to 1996 is
necessary for demonstrating reasonable further progress. Growth is
calculated by multiplying the 1990 base year inventory by acceptable
forecasting indicators. Growth must be determined separately for each
source, or by source category, since sources typically grow at
different rates. EPA's inventory preparation guidance recommends the
following indicators, in order of preference: product output, value
added, earnings, and employment. Population can also serve as a
surrogate indicator.
Pennsylvania's 15% plan contains growth projections for point,
area, on-road motor vehicle, and non-road vehicle source categories.
For a detailed description of the growth methodologies used by the
Commonwealth, please refer to the TSD for this action. In general, EPA
approves the Commonwealth's 1990-1996 emissions growth projections,
with one exception.
EPA disagrees with the growth projections for the on-road vehicle
category. The Commonwealth's 15% plan indicates that highway vehicle
emissions growth is based on growth in total vehicle miles of travel
(VMT) for the region, which the Commonwealth expects to increase by 7.7
million miles per day, and that on-road emissions are projected to
decrease by 11.9 tons/day. Since emissions from on-highway emissions
control measures are calculated separately in the plan (including
reductions associated with fleet turnover and the pre-1990 motor
vehicle standards) and Pennsylvania indicates that this growth is based
solely upon increasing VMT growth, it is unclear how motor vehicle
emissions are declining. Therefore, EPA cannot approve the
Commonwealth's on-road motor vehicle growth projection. Growth in
highway emissions should be determined independently of mobile source
control strategies. Additionally, the 15% plan should indicate what, if
any, other factors effect highway emissions growth, other than the
previously identified VMT influence.
Calculation of Target Level Emissions
Pennsylvania calculated a ``target level'' of 1996 VOC emissions,
per EPA guidance. First, the Commonwealth calculated the non-creditable
reductions from the FMVCP program and subtracted those emissions from
the 15 percent plans's 1990 inventory estimate. This yields the 1990
``adjusted inventory''. The emission reduction required to meet the 15
percent rate-of-progress requirement equals the sum of 15 percent of
the adjusted inventory and
[[Page 36322]]
any reductions necessary to offset emissions growth projected to occur
between 1990 and 1996, plus reductions that resulted from corrections
to the I/M or VOC RACT rules that were required to be in-place before
1990. Table 1 summarizes the calculations for the five-county
Philadelphia area's 1 VOC target level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The five-county Philadelphia area is comprised of the
following counties: Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and
Philadelphia.
Table 1.--Calculation of Required Reductions for the Philadelphia
Nonattainment Area's 15% Plan
[Tons/day]
1990 Base Year Emission Inventory [15% plan version].......... 629.27
Adjustments for FMVCP/RVP programs in-place (prior to 1990)... -32.95
1990 Adjusted Inventory....................................... 596.32
15% of the 1990 Adjusted Inventory............................ 89.45
Reductions from Previously Required RACT Rule Corrections..... 0.84
Projected 1990-1996 Emissions Growth.......................... 8.12
1996 Target Level............................................. 506.03
1996 2 Projection Inventory................................... 637.39
Required Reduction............................................ 131.36
2 1996 forecast emissions (projected from 1990), reflecting only
emissions growth and in-place (or, pre-1990) controls.
Control Strategies in the 15% Plan
The specific measures adopted (either through state or federal
rules) for the Philadelphia area are addressed, in detail, in the
Commonwealth's 15% plan. The following is a brief description of each
control measure Pennsylvania has claimed credit for in the submitted
15% plan, as well as the results of EPA's review of the use of that
strategy towards the Clean Air Act rate-of-progress requirement.
Creditable Emission Control Strategies
The control measures described below are creditable towards the
rate-of-progress requirements of the Act. However, the Commonwealth has
in many cases failed to fully document the claimed reductions,
particularly in the case of mobile source measures, which Pennsylvania
estimates using a Post-Processor for Air Quality (PPAQ) computer model.
This model uses MOBILE modeling information as input, and determines
total reductions for mobile source control strategies. The Commonwealth
provided no documentation from this modeling, with the exception of
sample MOBILE input and output files and modeling assumptions which are
used as input to the PPAQ. Therefore, for nearly every mobile source
control strategy utilized, the 15% plan lacks detailed documentation to
support the claimed reductions. EPA is not disapproving these measures,
or the creditability of such measures. However, EPA cannot fully
approve the reductions from the measures without additional
documentation to verify the emissions estimates. For further details
regarding EPA's review of the Commonwealth's control measures, please
refer to EPA's TSD for this action, located in the docket.
Stage II Vapor Recovery
This state-adopted regulation requires the installation and
operation of vapor recovery equipment on gasoline dispensing pumps to
reduce vehicle refueling emissions. The state regulation for this
program is codified in 25 PA Code Sec. 129.75. EPA approved the
Commonwealth's Stage II program on June 13, 1994 (59 FR 112). EPA
supports the Commonwealth's use of this measure towards the rate-of-
progress requirement. However, EPA is unable to fully verify the 17.0
tons/day credit estimate claimed by the Commonwealth for this program,
due to a lack of detail regarding the methodology used to quantify
Stage II reductions for the 15% plan.
Automobile Refinishing
EPA is in the process of adopting a national rule to control VOC
emissions from solvent evaporation through reformulation of coatings
used in auto body refinishing processes. These coatings are typically
used by small businesses, or by vehicle owners. VOC emissions emanate
from the evaporation of solvents used in the coating process.
Pennsylvania's 15% plan claims reductions from EPA's national rule.
Use of emissions reductions from EPA's expected national rule is
acceptable towards the 15% plan target. Pennsylvania claims a 35%
reduction, or 6.8 tons/day from their 1996 projected uncontrolled
autobody refinishing emissions. Due to inventory documentation
deficiencies in the 15% plan, EPA cannot verify the claimed reduction.
Reformulated Gasoline
Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act requires that, beginning
January 1, 1995, only reformulated gasoline be sold or dispensed in
ozone nonattainment areas classified as severe, or worse. This gasoline
is reformulated to reduce combustion by-products and to produce fewer
evaporative emissions. As a severe area, Philadelphia benefits from the
emission reductions from this program. However, EPA again cannot verify
the reductions from this program, based on the documentation provided
by the Commonwealth in the 15% plan.
Transportation, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) Rule
TSDFs are private facilities that manage dilute wastewater,
organic/inorganic sludges, and organic/inorganic solids. Waste disposal
can be done by various means including: incineration, treatment, or
underground injection or landfilling. EPA promulgated a national rule
on June 21, 1990 for the control of TSDF emissions. Pennsylvania claims
an expected VOC reduction of 3.13 tons/day from this national rule.
This measure is creditable towards the rate-of-progress requirements of
the Act. However, due to conflicts between the 1990 base and 1996
projected uncontrolled emissions from this emissions category, EPA
cannot verify this claimed reduction.
Rule Effectiveness (RE) Improvements
Rule effectiveness is a means of enhancing rule compliance or
implementation by industrial sources, and is expressed as a percentage
of total available reductions from a control measure. The default
assumption level for rule effectiveness is 80%. Pennsylvania claims RE
improvements from the 80% default level to a level of 90% in their 15%
plan SIP revision for Philadelphia, based upon improvements to RACT
regulations for twenty-nine facilities in the 5-county Philadelphia
area. The applicable RACT rules pertain to surface coating operations
(PA Code Sec. 129.52) and offset printing operations (PA Code
Sec. 129.67).
Pennsylvania followed EPA policy to quantify emissions reductions
from specific RE improvements for two categories, in the absence of
quantifiable compliance or emissions data. The RE measures Pennsylvania
claims toward the 15% plan include facility improvements, as well as
improved state oversight. Facility measures include: Improved operator
training, better operation and maintenance of process equipment,
improved source monitoring/reporting. State oversight improvements
include: More inspector training, stringent compliance inspections of
all RE improvement facilities. If the final facility inspections
identify a shortfall from the projected RE emission improvements,
Pennsylvania will utilize the ``surplus'' projected emissions
reductions (i.e., the RE improvement from 90%-94%) to alleviate the
shortfall. The state also claimed this four percent RE improvement as a
contingency measure in the plan. In the event that these
[[Page 36323]]
contingency reductions are needed to satisfy the 15% reduction
requirement, Pennsylvania must substitute another contingency measure
in place of this RE measure. For EPA's detailed analysis of this
measure, please refer to the appropriate section of the TSD for this
action. RE improvements are creditable toward the 15% plan requirement
of the Clean Air Act, and EPA supports Pennsylvania's emissions
projections for this measure. Therefore, Pennsylvania's claimed RE
improvements are approvable towards the 15% requirement of the Act.
Permanent VOC Source/Facility Shutdowns
Several industrial VOC sources that were operational in 1990 (i.e.
included in the base year inventory) have since shut down either
processes or entire facilities. Pennsylvania has adopted a banking rule
(25 Pa Code Sec. 127.208), which requires that sources wishing to bank
emission reduction credits, or ERCs, must do so within one year of
initiation of the shutdown. If not, the Commonwealth can claim credit
for the reductions as permanent and enforceable emissions reductions.
Pennsylvania's 15% plan claims partial credit for shutdowns for
which the source ``banked'' emissions reductions, and the Commonwealth
claimed the entire shutdown credit for sources that did not bank their
emissions within the one year deadline set forth in Pennsylvania's
banking rule. The 15% plan reflects shutdowns from twenty-one VOC
sources in the Philadelphia nonattainment area. These credits are
ineligible for use as future ERCs, or to offset emissions from new
sources under the Commonwealth's new source review regulation.
Reductions from this measure are both permanent and enforceable,
since the shutdowns are reflected in RACT permit conditions for the
facility. EPA is approving the use of these reductions.
Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings (AIM)
Emission reductions have been projected for AIM coatings due to the
expected promulgation by the EPA of a national rule. In a memo dated
March 22, 1995, EPA allowed states to claim a 20% reduction of total
AIM emissions from the national rule. Pennsylvania claimed a 15%
reduction in AIM emissions under its 15% plan. However, due to
deficiencies in the documentation of this portion of the underlying
emissions inventory, EPA cannot verify the claimed reduction.
Tier I Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program
EPA promulgated a national rule establishing ``new car'' standards
for 1994 and newer model year light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks
on June 5, 1991 (56 FR 25724). Since the standards were adopted after
the Clean Air Act was amended in 1990, the resulting emission
reductions are creditable toward the 15 percent reduction goal. The EPA
agrees with the State's projected emission reductions. Due to the
three-year phase-in period for this program, and the associated
benefits stemming from fleet turnover, the reductions prior to 1996 are
somewhat limited. Pennsylvania claimed a reduction of 4.5 tons/day from
this post-1990 Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program. As with other on-
highway mobile source control measures, the reductions from this
program cannot be verified without further information.
Off-Road Use of Reformulated Gasoline
The use of reformulated gasoline will also result in reduced
emissions from off-road engines such as outboard motors for boats and
lawn mower engines. The EPA agrees with the 0.59 ton/day reduction
projected in the 15% plan for off-road engines utilizing reformulated
gasoline.
Non-creditable Emissions Control Measures
The following control measure is not creditable towards meeting the
rate-of-progress requirements of the Clean Air Act. This measure, as it
is described in the submitted 15% plan, is no longer in-place.
Therefore, the emission reduction projected for this program is
invalid.
Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program
The I/M program described in the Commonwealth's 15% plan is a
contractor-operated, centralized, IM240 inspection program. This
program was conditionally approved by EPA in August of 1994. However,
since that time, Pennsylvania suspended operation of this program,
terminated the test inspector contract, and began the rule adoption
process for a decentralized program as a replacement for the
centralized program. Pennsylvania submitted a new I/M program SIP to
EPA, under authority provided by the National Highway Systems
Designation Act of 1995, on March 22, 1996. However, Pennsylvania has
not revised the 15% plan for Philadelphia to reflect differences in the
I/M program description and projected emissions reductions.
Reasonable Further Progress Shortfall
Table 2 summarizes the proposed creditable and non-creditable
reductions from Pennsylvania's 15% plan for the Philadelphia area.
While the reductions listed as ``creditable'' in this table can be used
to satisfy the Clean Air Act's reasonable further progress
requirements, the measures in many cases are not approvable because of
deficiencies related to quantification, lack of detailed emission
inventory information, and documentation deficiencies (particularly
related to mobile source control strategies).
Summary of Creditable and Non-creditable Emission Reductions for the
Philadelphia Ozone Nonattainment Area
[Tons/day]
Required Reduction for the Philadelphia area................... 131.36
Creditable Reductions
Stage II 1................................................. 117.02
FMVCP (Tier I) 1........................................... 4.51
Auto Refinishing 1......................................... 6.79
Rule Effectiveness Improvements (80%-90%).................. 21.55
Reformulated Gasoline--Highway 1...........................
Non-road vehicle use of RFG \1\........................ 0.59
Industrial Facility Shutdowns.............................. 3.24
AIM Coatings Rules \1\..................................... 5.96
TSDF Controls \1\.......................................... 3.13
--------
Total.................................................... 85.85
========
Reductions not Approvable: Inspection & Maintenance Program \1\ 45.64
--------
Total not approved....................................... 45.64
--------
Shortfall (from target level).................................. 45.51
1 Pennsylvania's claimed reduction. This estimate cannot be verified
based on the supporting documentation (e.g. supporting modeling,
sample calculations, base year inventory references, etc.) For
specific deficiencies related to an individual category, refer to the
applicable portion of section III of EPA's technical support document
entitled ``Evaluation of the Commonwealth's 15% Plan Control
Measures'', located in the official docket for this action.
Contingency Measures
Per section 172(c)(9) of the Act, for ozone nonattainment areas
classified as moderate or above, states must include contingency
measures in their 15% plan submittals. These are measures which are to
be immediately implemented if reasonable further progress (RFP) is not
achieved, or if the areas do not attain the NAAQS standard by the
applicable date mandated by the Act. EPA's interpretation of this Clean
Air Act requirement is set forth in The General Preamble to Title I (57
FR 13498), which requires that the contingency measures should, at a
minimum, ensure that emissions reductions continue to be made if RFP
(or attainment) is not
[[Page 36324]]
achieved in a timely manner, and additional planning by the state is
needed. EPA interprets the Act to require States with moderate and
above ozone nonattainment areas to include sufficient contingency
measures in the 15% plan SIP submittal, such that upon implementation
of those measures, additional emissions reductions of up to three
percent of the adjusted base year inventory (or a lesser percentage
that will make up the identified shortfall) would be achieved in the
year after the failure has been identified. States must show that their
contingency measures can be implemented with minimal further action on
their part, and with no additional rulemaking actions (e.g. public
hearings, legislative review, etc.). EPA has further interpreted the
Act to allow states to substitute NOx control measures to achieve
a portion of the required contingency measure reductions.
Analysis of Specific Contingency Measures
The following is a discussion of each of the contingency measures
that have been included in the SIP submittals and an analysis of their
approvability.
VOC Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
The CAA requires states to adopt regulatory programs mandating RACT
control strategies for major sources located in ozone nonattainment
areas. Since Philadelphia is a severe ozone nonattainment area, the CAA
threshold for major sources is 25 tons/year. Pennsylvania determined
reductions from certain classes of major source complying with RACT (on
a case-by-case basis) within the Philadelphia area, and claimed a 1.02
ton/day reduction from VOC RACT, for use as a contingency measure.
However, EPA interprets the Act to prohibit the use of mandatory
measures (i.e. those specified under the Clean Air Act for an
applicable nonattainment area) as contingency measures, unless such a
measure is in place to reduce another pollutant, and additionally
provides VOC or NOx reductions. Therefore, Pennsylvania's VOC RACT
reduction is not creditable as a contingency measure, since VOC RACT is
required to be implemented, prior to 1996, under section 182 of the
Act.
Employee Commute Options Program
The Clean Air Act required severe nonattainment areas to adopt an
employee trip reduction (ETR) program, providing a 25% reduction in
average vehicle occupancy levels during the summer morning ``rush
hour'' period. In a letter of February 27, 1995 from Pennsylvania
Governor Tom Ridge, Pennsylvania announced the suspension of
implementation and enforcement of the Commonwealth's adopted ETR
program. However, the Commonwealth has not removed the ETR regulation
from the Pennsylvania Code of Regulations, but has encouraged voluntary
``trip reduction'' efforts. Since then, Congress has removed the
requirement for this program and EPA has issued guidance interpreting
Congress's revised legislation. This guidance indicates that ETR need
not be implemented if a state undertakes additional measures to make up
the ``emissions shortfall'' caused by suspension of the program.
Pennsylvania's 15% plan SIP claims credit for early implementation
of ETR as a contingency measure, based on the assumption that the
program would be implemented in 1996 and would achieve the predicted
emissions benefits at that time. The 15% plan claims ``full'' credit
for the program, not accounting for its voluntary nature. EPA cannot
approve the Commonwealth's ETR program, as claimed within the 15% plan.
However, this measure would be approvable if the Commonwealth amended
the 15% plan to provide for reimplementation of the ETR regulation to
require a future mandatory ETR program.
NOx Source/Process Shutdowns
Pennsylvania is claiming credit, as a contingency measure, for
emissions reductions credits from four facilities that banked emissions
reduction credits from permanent NOx process shutdowns, under the
state's banking rule. These shutdowns occurred after 1990, but before
1996. Pennsylvania's banking regulation is found at 25 Pa. Code
Sec. 127.210. The sources for which the Commonwealth claims contingency
measure credit include: U.S. Steel--Fairless Hills, Martin Marietta
Astro Space, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs, and Marck Co., Inc.
These reductions are permanent, since the shutdowns are to be
reflected as RACT permit conditions in the facilities' revised permits.
EPA interprets section 182(b)(1) of the Act to require that for the
period from 1990 to 1996, only VOC reductions are creditable towards
the 15% plan requirement. Furthermore, any contingency measure
implemented early (i.e., before 1997) must also be a VOC measure, in
order to be creditable as a contingency measure for failure to reach
the 15% RFP milestone. Since the claimed shutdowns are NOx
reductions that occurred prior to 1996, the reductions are not
approvable as a contingency measure to meet the reasonable further
progress requirements of the Clean Air Act. Additionally, in order for
a NOx measure to be creditable as a contingency measure (i.e.
reductions occur after 1996), the state must demonstrate that total
NOx reduction from all combined NOx control strategies does
not exceed 2.7% of the adjusted 1990 base year NOx inventory.
Pennsylvania did not submit a 1990 baseline NOx inventory, nor
attempt to make the above demonstration.
Improved Rule Effectiveness (90%-94% Level)
Pennsylvania credits rule effectiveness (RE) improvements from the
80% default level to a level of 90% toward the 15% plan SIP obligation.
However, the Commonwealth maintains that the actual RE improvement is
94%, and is utilizing the improvements from the 90% to 94% level as a
contingency measure. These RE improvements are obtained from VOC RACT
regulations (for the Philadelphia area) pertaining to two categories--
surface coating operations (PA Code Sec. 129.52) and offset printing
operations (PA Code Sec. 129.67). Table 5.2 of the 15% plan lists those
facilities from which the Commonwealth assumes increased RE credits.
These are the same facilities listed for RE improvements towards the
15% rate-of-progress plan. If the Commonwealth identifies a shortfall
in their rule effectiveness claim (the 80-90% level) in the 15% plan,
then the Commonwealth will utilize the reductions from the 90-94% RE
level to make up a shortfall in their 15% plan. In that event, another
contingency measure must be adopted to make up any shortfall thereby
created in the Commonwealth's contingency measure portion of the SIP.
EPA approves Pennsylvania's use of this measure, and the credits
claimed for its use as a contingency measure. The reductions occurring
from this measure will be in place prior to 1996, the earliest time by
which reductions for a contingency measure would be needed. However,
EPA has issued policy allowing states to implement contingency measures
early (without penalty), assuming that such a measure is not a
mandatory Part D requirement under the Act.
Consumer and Commercial Products Reformulation
Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act required EPA to conduct a study
of VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products and to compile a
regulatory priority list. EPA is then
[[Page 36325]]
required to regulate those categories that account for 80% of the
consumer product emissions in ozone nonattainment areas. Group I of
EPA's regulatory schedule lists 24 categories of consumer products to
be regulated by national rule, including personal, household, and
automotive products. EPA intends to issue a final rule covering these
products in the near future. EPA policy allows states to claim up to a
20% reduction of total consumer product emissions towards the
reasonable further progress requirement. Pennsylvania determined
reductions from implementation of this national rule, but claimed
credit for the program as a contingency measure. However, EPA has
interpreted the Clean Air Act to disallow the use of mandatory
measures, i.e. those required by the Act to be implemented in an ozone
nonattainment area, as contingency measures. Therefore, for the same
reason that Pennsylvania cannot utilize VOC RACT as a contingency
measure, the state cannot use the consumer products national rule as a
contingency measure.
Highway Marking Paints
This measure requires, through a memorandum of understanding with
the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), a conversion
from solvent-based to low- or non-VOC paints when painting traffic
lines on highway surfaces in the Philadelphia area. EPA considers
highway paints as a subset of the AIM coating emissions category, for
which Pennsylvania has already claimed emissions reduction in the 15%
plan. However, Pennsylvania claims that highway markings are a
separately inventoried category. PennDOT estimates for traffic line
painting VOC emissions are based on the solvent formulation and usage
estimates based on population, and assume a total annual reduction of
58%-73%, compared to solvent-based paints. Pennsylvania claims a VOC
reduction in 1996 of 1.56 tons/day. The 15% plan SIP revision does not
indicate whether Pennsylvania has executed a memorandum of
understanding, the implementation mechanism for this program. This
contingency measure involves product reformulations, which are
presently commercially available, and utilizes a non-regulatory, yet
binding, mechanism for the state to require this measure. EPA assumes
that this measure could be enacted within 60 days of the Commonwealth's
failure to achieve the RFP requirements of the Clean Air Act, and is
therefore an approvable contingency measure.
Table 3.--Summary of Contingency Measures and Associated Reductions
(tons/day) for the Philadelphia Nonattainment Area
Required Contingency........................................... 17.88
========
Creditable Reductions:
Traffic Line Paint Reformulation........................... 1.56
Rule Effectiveness Improvement (90%94%)........... 8.63
--------
Total Creditable Reductions............................ 10.19
========
Reductions not Creditable:
VOC RACT reductions........................................ 1.02
Consumer/Commercial Products (National Rule)............... 6.68
NOX Source/Facility Shutdowns (post-1990).................. \1\ 1.4
6
Employer Trip Reduction Program............................ 0.93
--------
Total non-creditable reductions........................ 10.09
========
Shortfall.............................................. 7.69
\1\ NOX reduction is listed as a VOC equivalent reduction, based on a
NOX/VOC conversion factor (see discussion of measure in the TSD).
III. Proposed Action
The EPA has evaluated this submittal for consistency with the Clean
Air Act, applicable EPA regulations, and EPA policy. Pennsylvania's 15
percent plan for Philadelphia will not achieve sufficient reductions to
meet the 15 percent rate-of-progress requirements of section 182(b)(1)
of the Act. In addition, the contingency plans in these SIP submittals
would not achieve sufficient emission reductions to meet the three
percent reduction requirement, under 172(c)(9) of the Act.
Additionally, there are measures included in the plan, which are
creditable towards the Act requirement, but which are insufficiently
documented to qualify for Clean Air Act approval. EPA has not included
these measures as part of the 15% plan or contingency measure
shortfall, although the reductions from these measures are not fully
approvable towards the RFP requirement. Finally, the baseline 1990
emissions inventory contained in the Commonwealth's 15% plan varies
from the state's officially submitted 1990 emissions inventory SIP
revision, without justification or documentation.
In light of the above deficiencies, EPA is proposing to disapprove
this SIP revision under section 110(k)(3) and section 301(a) of the
Act. The submittal does not satisfy the requirements of section
182(b)(1) of the Act regarding the 15 percent reasonable further
progress plan, nor the requirement of section 172(c)(9) of the Clean
Air Act regarding contingency measures.
EPA is aware that Pennsylvania is currently revising the 15% plan,
which the Commonwealth intends to submit in the near future. Since
Congress passed the National Highway Systems Designation Act of 1995,
which amended federal I/M program requirements and granted states
authority to revise their I/M programs, and Pennsylvania has utilized
that authority to revise its I/M program, revision of the 15% plan to
reflect the I/M program changes is expected. When the Commonwealth
submits a revised 15% plan, EPA expects they will withdraw the SIP
revision which is the subject of today's action. Upon receipt of the
revised 15% plan submittal, EPA will undertake a separate review of
that plan for compliance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. If
the deficiencies cited in today's action are remedied by the revised
submittal, EPA will withdraw this proposed disapproval and propose
approval of that submittal.
Nothing in today's action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
EPA's proposed disapproval of the State request under section 110
and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act does not affect any
existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing
federal requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal
disapproval of the state submittal does not affect its state-
enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not
impose any new federal requirement. Therefore, EPA certifies that this
proposed disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it does not remove
existing
[[Page 36326]]
requirements and impose any new federal requirements.
Under section 179(a)(2), if the EPA Administrator takes final
disapproval action on a submission under section 110(k) for an area
designated nonattainment based on the submission's failure to meet one
or more of the elements required by the Act, the Administrator must
apply one of the sanctions set forth in section 179(b) of the Act
(unless the deficiency has been corrected within 18 months of such
disapproval). Section 179(b) provides two sanctions available to the
Administrator: revocation of highway funding and the imposition of
emission offset requirements. The 18-month period referred to in
section 179(a) will begin on the effective date established in the
final disapproval action. If the deficiency is not corrected within 6
months of the imposition of the first sanction, the second sanction
will apply. This sanctions process is set forth in 40 CFR 52.31.
Today's action serves only to propose disapproval of the Commonwealth's
SIP revision, and does not constitute final agency action. Thus, the
sanctions process described above does not commence with today's
action.
Also, 40 CFR 51.448(b) of the federal transportation conformity
rules (40 CFR 51.448(b)) state that if the EPA disapproves a submitted
control strategy implementation plan revision which initiates the
sanction process under Act section 179, the conformity status of the
transportation plan and transportation improvement plan shall lapse 120
days after the EPA's disapproval.
Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting
Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register.
This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by section 804(2) of the
APA as amended.
This disapproval action for the Pennsylvania 15% plan for
Philadelphia has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature by
the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
The Regional Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the
SIP revision will be based on whether it meets the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(A)-(K) and part D of the Clean Air Act, as amended,
and EPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 51.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental regulations, Reporting and recordkeeping, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: July 1, 1996.
W. T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-17546 Filed 7-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17537 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, - 30, -40, and -50 Series Airplanes and C-9 (Military) Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36307-36308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17537]
========================================================================
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. 133 / Wednesday, July 10, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 36307]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-NM-91-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, -20, -
30, -40, and -50 Series Airplanes and C-9 (Military) Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model
DC-9 series airplanes and C-9 (military) airplanes. This proposal would
require either replacement or modification of the hydraulic damper
assembly. This proposal is prompted by reports indicating that
insufficient damping of the hydraulic shimmy damper in the main landing
gear (MLG) can allow high torsional vibration to occur. The actions
specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent such vibration,
which can damage the MLG assembly and lead to its collapse.
DATES: Comments must be received by August 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-NM-91-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 McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,
Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications
Business Administration, Department C1-L51 (2-60). This information may
be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, California.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walter Eierman, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California
90712; telephone (310) 627-5336; fax (310) 627-5210.
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-91-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-91-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion -
The FAA has received several reports of incidents in which
components of the main landing gear (MLG) on McDonnell Douglas Model
DC-9 series airplanes have been damaged. In one incident, the MLG
torque link was broken; in another incident, the nut was stripped off
of the torque link apex bolt. Investigation has revealed that, under
maximum loading of the hydraulic damper assembly, which occurs during
landing, the metal-to-metal seal between the cap and damper assembly
housing can leak (hydraulic fluid) internally. Such leakage can reduce
the effectiveness of the damper. -
Insufficient damping of the MLG hydraulic shimmy damper allows
torsional vibration to occur in the MLG. High torsional vibration can
damage the MLG, which can result in collapse of the MLG and can cause
additional damage to other parts of the airplane.
Explanation of Relevant Service Information -
The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas Service
Bulletin DC9-32-289, dated March 7, 1996, which describes procedures
for either replacing or modifying the hydraulic damper assembly. The
replacement entails replacing the current assembly with an improved
assembly. The modification involves removing shims located between the
cap and damper assembly housing, increasing the torque on damper
housing assembly bolts, and incorporating changes to increase the
volume of fluid passing between the two damper chambers. These actions
will enhance the performance of the shimmy damper and reduce the
potential for torsional vibration in the MLG.
Explanation of Requirements of Proposed Rule -
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the
proposed AD would require either replacing or modifying the hydraulic
damper assembly. The actions would be required to be accomplished in
accordance with the service bulletin described previously.
[[Page 36308]]
Other Relevant Rulemaking -
The FAA previously issued AD 96-01-09, amendment 39-9485 (61 FR
2407, January 26, 1996), which addresses a similar problem found on
McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-80 series airplanes and Model MD-88
airplanes.
Cost Impact -
There are approximately 878 Model DC-9 series airplanes and C-9
(military) airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The
FAA estimates that 590 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by
this proposed AD. -
To accomplish the proposed replacement would take approximately 5.9
work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour.
Required parts would cost approximately $11,139 per airplane (two
assemblies at $5,569 each). Based on these figures, the cost impact of
the proposed replacement action on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$11,492 per airplane. -
To accomplish the proposed modification would take approximately
10.9 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $60 per work
hour. Required parts would cost approximately $2,907 per airplane.
Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed modification
action on U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,561 per airplane. -
Based on the figures discussed above, the cost impact of this
proposed AD on the U.S. fleet would be between $2,100,990 and
$6,780,280. These cost impact figures are based on assumptions that no
operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this
AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the
future if this AD were not adopted.
Regulatory Impact -
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. -
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 -
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment -
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES -
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended] -
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
McDonnell Douglas: Docket 96-NM-91-AD.
-Applicability: Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series
airplanes, and C-9 (military) airplanes; as listed in McDonnell
Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-32-289, dated March 7, 1996;
certificated in any category.
-Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
-Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously. -
To prevent high torsional vibration from occurring, which can
damage the main landing gear (MLG) assembly and lead to its
collapse, accomplish the following: -
(a) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, either
replace or modify the MLG hydraulic damper assembly, in accordance
with the procedures specified as either Option 1 or Option 2,
respectively, in McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-32-289,
dated March 7, 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, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
-Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(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 airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 3, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-17537 Filed 7-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17536 Airworthiness Directives; Jetstream Model 4101 Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36308-36310]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17536]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-271-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Jetstream Model 4101 Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Jetstream Model 4101
series airplanes. This proposal would require a high frequency eddy
current inspection to detect cracks of the boundary angle and joint
angle of the rear pressure bulkhead, and repair, if necessary. This
proposal also would require modification of the rear pressure bulkhead
of the fuselage. This proposal is prompted by a report of fatigue
cracking in the rear pressure bulkhead of the fuselage. The actions
specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent such fatigue
cracking, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
fuselage and, consequently, lead to the rapid decompression of the
pressurized area of the airplane.
DATES: Comments must be received by August 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
[[Page 36309]]
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-271-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 Jetstream Aircraft, Inc., P.O. Box 16029, Dulles
International Airport, Washington, DC 20041-6029. This information may
be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Schroeder, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2148; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited -
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received. -
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket. -
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-271-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs -
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-NM-271-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion -
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness
authority for the United Kingdom, recently notified the FAA that an
unsafe condition may exist on certain Jetstream Model 4101 airplanes.
The CAA advises that, during fatigue tests on a Model 4101 test
article, cracking was found in the rear pressure bulkhead of the
fuselage. Such cracking is attributed to fatigue-related stress.
Fatigue-related cracking in the rear pressure bulkhead, if not detected
and correct in a timely manner, could result in reduced structural
integrity of fuselage and, consequently, lead to the rapid
decompression of the pressurized area of the airplane.
Explanation of Relevant Service Information -
Jetstream has issued Service Bulletin J41-53-020-41382A, dated
September 28, 1995, as revised by Erratum No. 1, dated October 11,
1995, which describes procedures for a high frequency eddy current
inspection to detect cracks of the boundary angle and joint angle of
the rear pressure bulkhead. The service bulletin also describes
procedures for modification of the rear pressure bulkhead of the
fuselage. The modification involves installing shear cleats, angles,
brackets, and stiffeners; and removing and replacing the brackets with
new brackets. The CAA classified this service bulletin as mandatory in
order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the
United Kingdom.
FAA's Conclusion -
This airplane model is manufactured in the United Kingdom and is
type certificated for operation in the United States under the
provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant
to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA has kept the FAA
informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the
findings of the CAA, reviewed all available information, and determined
that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are
certificated for operation in the United States.
Explanation of Requirements of Proposed Rule -
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, the
proposed AD would require a high frequency eddy current inspection to
detect cracks of the boundary angle and joint angle of the rear
pressure bulkhead, and repair, if necessary. The proposed AD also would
require modification of the rear pressure bulkhead of the fuselage. The
actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the
service bulletin described previously. If any boundary angle or joint
angle is cracked, the repair would be required to be accomplished in
accordance with a method approved by the FAA.
Cost Impact -
The FAA estimates that 26 Model 4101 airplanes of U.S. registry
would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately
40 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that
the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would be
supplied by the manufacturer at no cost to the operators. Based on
these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is
estimated to be $62,400, or $2,400 per airplane. -
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of
this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in
the future if this AD were not adopted.
Regulatory Impact -
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects 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.
[[Page 36310]]
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.
39.13 [Amended] -
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Jetstream Aircraft Limited: Docket 95-NM-271-AD.
-Applicability: Model 4101 airplanes, constructors numbers 41004
through 41060 inclusive, certificated in any category.
-Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
-Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously. -
To prevent fatigue-related cracking in the rear pressure
bulkhead, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
fuselage and, consequently, lead to the rapid decompression of the
pressurized area of the airplane; accomplish the following: -
(a) Prior to the accumulation of 10,000 total landings, or
within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later, accomplish paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD, in
accordance Jetstream Service Bulletin J41-53-020-41382A, dated
September 28, 1995, as revised by Erratum No. 1, dated October 11,
1995. -
(1) Perform a high frequency eddy current inspection to detect
cracks of the boundary angle and joint angle of the rear pressure
bulkhead, in accordance with the service bulletin. If any crack is
detected, prior to further flight, repair it in accordance with a
method approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. -
(2) Modify the rear pressure bulkhead of the fuselage (Jetstream
Modification 41382A), in accordance with the service bulletin. -
(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, Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA
Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send
it to the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
-Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
-(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 airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 3, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-17536 Filed 7-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17534 Airworthiness Directives; AlliedSignal Inc. TFE731 Series Turbofan Engines
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36310-36311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17534]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-ANE-08]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; AlliedSignal Inc. TFE731 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 AlliedSignal Inc. TFE731 series
turbofan engines. This proposal would require removal from service of
certain low pressure turbine (LPT) seal plates prior to accumulating
the new, reduced cyclic life limit, and replacement with serviceable
LPT seal plates. This proposal is prompted by a report that the
machined LPT seal plate geometry did not meet the design intent due to
drawing ambiguity. The actions specified by the proposed AD are
intended to prevent fatigue cracking and subsequent uncontained failure
of an LPT seal plate.
DATES: Comments must be received by September 9, 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. 96-ANE-08, 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 AlliedSignal Aerospace, Attn: Data Distribution, M/S 64-
3/2101-201, P.O. Box 29003, Phoenix, AZ 85038-9003; telephone (602)
365-2493, fax (602) 365-5577. 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: Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; telephone
(310) 627-5246; fax (310) 627-5210.
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 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-ANE-08.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
[[Page 36311]]
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. 96-ANE-08, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803-5299.
Discussion
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has received a report
that on certain AlliedSignal Inc. TFE731-2A, -3C and -3CR series
turbofan engines the machined low pressure turbine (LPT) seal plate
geometry did not meet the design intent due to drawing ambiguity. This
drawing ambiguity affected all seal plates, Part Number (P/N) 3073552-2
and P/N 3074053-1. Stress analysis of these seal plates indicated that
a reduction in the FAA-approved low cycle fatigue (LCF) life limit was
necessary. This condition, if not corrected, could result in fatigue
cracking and subsequent uncontained failure of an LPT seal plate.
The FAA has reviewed and approved the technical contents of
AlliedSignal Inc. Service Bulletin (SB) No. TFE731-72-3573, dated
August 15, 1995, that describes procedures for removal from service of
certain part numbered LPT seal plates and replacement with serviceable
parts.
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 removal from service LPT seal plates, Part
Number (P/N) 3073552-2 and P/N 3074053-1, prior to accumulating the
new, reduced cyclic life limit of 3,700 cycles since new (CSN), and
replacement with serviceable parts. The actions would be required to be
accomplished in accordance with the SB described previously.
The FAA estimates that 268 engines installed on aircraft of U.S.
registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take
approximately 1 work hour during scheduled maintenance to accomplish
the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work
hour. Required parts would cost approximately $5,000 per engine. Based
on these figures, the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S.
operators is estimated to be $1,356,080.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
AlliedSignal Inc.: Docket No. 96-ANE-08.
Applicability: AlliedSignal Inc. Models TFE731-2A, -3C and -3CR
series turbofan engines, with low pressure turbine (LPT) seal
plates, Part Number (P/N) 3073552-2 and P/N 3074053-1, installed.
These aircraft are installed on but not limited to Cessna Model 650
Citation III and Israel Aircraft Industries Model 1125 Westwind
Astra 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 use the
authority provided in paragraph (c) 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 fatigue cracking and subsequent uncontained failure
of an LPT seal plate, accomplish the following:
(a) Prior to accumulating 3,700 cycles since new (CSN) on LPT
seal plates, P/N 3073552-2 and 3074053-1, remove from service these
LPT seal plates, and replace with serviceable parts, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of AlliedSignal Inc. Service
Bulletin (SB) No. TFE731-72-3573, dated August 15, 1995.
(b) This action establishes a new, reduced cyclic life limit of
3,700 CSN for LPT seal plates, P/N 3073552-2 and P/N 3074053-1.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft 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, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office.
Note: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this airworthiness directive,
if any, may be obtained from the Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on June 11, 1996.
Jay J. Pardee,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-17534 Filed 7-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17523 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of Rescheduled Public Hearing on Proposed Threatened and Endangered Status for Five Plants and a Lizard From Monterey County, California
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36346-36347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17523]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of
Rescheduled Public Hearing on Proposed Threatened and Endangered Status
for Five Plants and a Lizard From Monterey County, California
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule, notice of rescheduled public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), provides notice of
rescheduling of a public hearing on the proposed endangered status for
coastal dunes milkvetch (Astragalus tener var. titi), Yadon's piperia
(Piperia yadonii), Hickman's potentilla (Potentilla hickmanii),
Monterey clover (Trifolium trichocalyx) and the black legless lizard
(Anniella pulchra nigra); and threatened status for Gowen cypress
(Cupressus goveniana ssp. goveniana). All parties are invited to submit
comments on this proposal.
DATES: A public hearing was originally scheduled for Wednesday, July
17, 1996, in Monterey, California. The hearing has been rescheduled to
be held on Tuesday, August 20, 1996, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. in
Monterey, California. Any comments received by August 30, 1996, will be
considered in the final decision on this proposal.
ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be held at the Hyatt Regency Hotel,
One Golf Course Road, Monterey, California. Written comments and
materials concerning this proposal may be submitted at the hearing or
sent directly to the Field Supervisor, Ventura Field Office, 2493
Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003. Comments and
materials will be available for public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Connie Rutherford (see ADDRESSES
section) or at 805/644-1766.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Most of the habitat for the plants and lizard is found in coastal
habitats in northern Monterey County. Coastal dunes milk-vetch and
Monterey clover are restricted to private lands on the Monterey
Peninsula. Hickman's potentilla is restricted to two populations: one
on the Monterey Peninsula, and one recently discovered near Devil's
Slide in San Mateo County. Gowen cypress stands occur on the Monterey
Peninsula, and at Point Lobos State Reserve five miles to the south.
Yadon's piperia occurs primarily on private lands on the Monterey
Peninsula, with other populations extending as far south as Palo
Colorado Canyon, and as far north as Blohm
[[Page 36347]]
Ranch north of Prunedale. The black legless lizard occurs on private
and State Park lands between the Salinas and Carmel Rivers, on the
Monterey Peninsula, and along Monterey Bay. A few populations of
Yadon's piperia and the black legless lizard occur on Federal lands at
Fort Ord.
The five plant taxa and the lizard are threatened by one or more of
the following: alteration, destruction, and fragmentation of habitat
resulting from urban and golf course development; recreational
activities; highway widening; military activities; competition with
non-native species; and alteration of natural fire cycles. All taxa are
also threatened with stochastic extinction due to the small numbers of
populations or individuals.
On August 2, 1995, the Service published a proposed rule on
proposed endangered status for Astragalus tener var. titi, Piperia
yadonii, Potentilla hickmanii, Trifolium trichocalyx, and the black
legless lizard (Anniella pulchra nigra); and threatened status for
Gowen cypress (Cupressus goveniana ssp. goveniana (60 FR 39326).
Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act requires that a public hearing be held if
one is requested within 45 days of the publication of the proposed rule
in the Federal Register. A public hearing request was received within
the allotted time period from Robert D. Thornton of Nossaman, Guthner,
Knox & Elliott in Irvine, California. On June 26, 1996, the Service
announced that a public hearing was scheduled to be held on July 17,
1996 (61 FR 33082). The hearing has been rescheduled to be held on
August 20, 1996, at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, One Golf Course Road,
Monterey, California.
Anyone wishing to make statements for the record should bring a
written copy of their statements to the hearing. Oral statements may be
limited in length if the number of parties present at the hearing
necessitates such a limitation. Oral and written comments receive equal
consideration. The Service places no limits to the length of written
comments or materials presented at the hearing or mailed to the
Service. Legal notices announcing the date, time, and location of the
hearing are being published in local newspapers. Written comments may
be submitted until August 30, 1996, to the Service office in the
ADDRESSES section.
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
Dated: July 3, 1996.
Don Weathers,
Acting Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 96-17523 Filed 7-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17520 Federal Tax Deposits by Electronic Funds Transfer; Hearing Cancellation
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 36320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17520]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Parts 1 and 31
[IA-03-94]
Federal Tax Deposits by Electronic Funds Transfer; Hearing
Cancellation
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.
ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed
regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document provides notice of cancellation of a public
hearing on proposed Income Tax Regulations relating to the deposit of
Federal taxes by electronic funds.
DATES: The public hearing originally scheduled for Tuesday, July 16,
1996, beginning at 10:00 a.m. is cancelled.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Slaughter of the Regulations
Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate), (202) 622-7190, (not a toll-
free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject of the public hearing is
proposed regulations under section 6302 of the Internal Revenue Code. A
notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary
regulations and notice of public hearing appearing in the Federal
Register on Thursday, March 21, 1996 (61 FR 11595), announced that the
public hearing on proposed regulations under section 6302 of the
Internal Revenue Code would be held on Tuesday, July 16, 1996,
beginning at 10:00 a.m., in the Commissioner's Conference Room, Room
3313, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW.
Washington, D.C.
The public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, July 16, 1996, is
cancelled.
Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 96-17520 Filed 7-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17487 Adoption Fee for Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36333-36334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17487]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Part 4700
[NV-960-1060-00-24 1A]
RIN 1004-AC61
Adoption Fee for Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to revise the
procedure used to set adoption fees for Wild Horses and Burros to allow
use of competitive methods. The purpose of the amendment is to allow
BLM more flexibility in establishing adoption fees and to recover a
higher proportion of the associated cost.
DATES: You must submit comments by September 9, 1996. Comments received
or postmarked after this date may not be considered in the decision
making process on the issuance of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: You must submit comments or suggestions to: Director (420),
Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street NW, 401 LS, Washington, DC
20240. Comments can also be sent to Internet:
[email protected] Please include ``attn: AC61'' and your
name and address in your internet message. Comments will be available
for public review at 1620 L Street NW, Room 401, Washington, DC 20036,
during regular business hours (7:45 am to 4:15 pm), Monday through
Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lili Thomas, Wild Horse and Burro
National Program Office (702) 785-6457 or Bob Barbour, Regulatory
Management Team (202) 452-7785.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Discussion of Proposed Rule
In the 1950's a group concerned with the welfare of America's
diminishing wild horse herds formed under the leadership of Velma Bronn
Johnson. Better known as ``Wild Horse Annie,'' this woman from Nevada,
along with many others, worked to ensure a place for wild horses and
burros on Federal rangelands.
In 1971, Congress passed The Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act
recognizing these animals as an integral part of the natural system
they inhabited at the time of passage. In 1973, BLM began a program
that offered animals for ``adoption'' to qualified private individuals
who agree to provide them humane treatment. The Adopt a Horse or Burro
Program has placed over 141,000 animals in private care.
The existing adoption fee of $125 for wild horses and $75 for wild
burros was implemented in 1982 to recapture a portion of the adoption
cost, limit adoption to individuals with financial ability to care for
the adopted animal, and assure that every animal was adopted as quickly
as practical after its removal from public lands. The adoption fee was
originally set using the market price of horses in 1982. In the early
1980's the value of horses and burros was low because of an
overabundance of these animals in the market. Currently the market
value of the lowest quality domestic horse is about $300, well above
the fee BLM charges. Additionally since 1982 the cost BLM incurs to
feed, provide veterinary care and transport wild horses and burros has
increased significantly.
Because of the low adoption fee, there is a significant economic
incentive for adopters to sell their animals when they receive title.
In addition, the low fee encourages adoption by individuals who are not
financially able to provide proper care. Placement of wild horses and
burros to these individuals often results in animals not receiving
proper care and later having to be repossessed.
As explained within, BLM is proposing a more flexible approach to
adoption fees to deal with this situation. Under this adoption system
horses and burros would be offered to the public at
[[Page 36334]]
competitive adoptions. Animals not selected by the public through a
competitive adoption, would be available at the base fee $125.00. BLM
is not changing the qualification requirements for adoption of a wild
horse or burro. Adopters must meet the requirements of 43 CFR 4750
before they are allowed to participate in an adoption event.
An increased adoption fee would also shift some of the cost of the
adoption from the general taxpayer to the individuals who benefit
directly from this program. Future adoption fees would reflect market
value of the animals and strike a balance between supply and demand.
Prior to each adoption event BLM will provide information on how
the adoption will be conducted and the method to be used for
establishing adoption fees.
II. Procedural Matters
National Environmental Policy Act
The BLM has determined that this rule is categorically excluded
from further environmental review pursuant to 516 Departmental Manual
(DM), Chapter 2, Appendix 1, Item 1.10, and that the proposal would not
meet any of the 10 criteria for exceptions to categorical exclusion
listed in 516 DM 2, Appendix 2. Pursuant to the Council on
Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1508.4) and environmental
policies and procedures of the Department of the Interior, the term
``categorical exclusions'' means a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment and that have been found to have no such effect in
procedures adopted by a Federal agency and for which neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule was not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget under Executive Order 12866. The cost of complying with the
requirements of the rule is indistinguishable from the requirements
imposed by the existing adoption fee regulations. Further, for the same
reasons, the Department has determined under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule
does not distinguish between entities based on size.
Federal Paperwork Reduction Act
The provisions for collection of information contained at 43 CFR
Part 4710 have previously been approved by the Office of Management and
Budget and assigned clearance numbers 1004-0042.
This rule does not contain additional information collection
requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and
Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Executive Order 12630
The Department certifies that this proposed rule does not represent
a governmental action capable of interference with constitutionally
protected property rights. Therefore, as required by Executive Order
12630, the Department of the Interior has determined that the rule
would not cause a taking of private property.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The BLM has determined that this regulation is not significant
under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, because it will not
result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Further, this rule will not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments.
Executive Order 12988
The Department has determined that these final regulations et the
applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988.
Authors: The principal authors of this proposed rule are Lili
Thomas of the Wild Horse and Burro National Program Office and Bob
Barbour of the Regulatory Management Team, BLM, assisted by Kim
Fondren of the Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior.
List of Subjects 43 CFR Part 4700
Animal Welfare, Horses, Penalties, Public Lands, Range Management,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
Accordingly, BLM proposes to amend Subpart 4750 as follows:
PART 4700--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 4700 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1331-1340; 18 U.S.C. 47; 43 U.S.C. 315 and
1740.
2. Section 4750.4-2 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 4750.4-2 Adoption Fee
(a) Does BLM charge an adoption fee for wild horses and burros?
You must pay a base adoption fee of $125 for each wild horse or
burro you adopt. You will not be charged an adoption fee for orphan
foals.
(b) Can the adoption fee be increased?
Yes, BLM may choose to hold a competitive adoption for particular
wild horses or burros. At competitive adoptions, qualified adopters
under 43 CFR part 4750 set adoption fees through competitive bidding.
Horses or burros remaining at the end of a competitive adoption will be
available for adoption at the base fee.
(c) Can the adoption fee be reduced or waived?
(1) The BLM Director may reduce or waive the fee when wild horses
or burros are un-adoptable at the base adoption fee.
(2) A reduction or waiver of the adoption fee is available only if
you are willing to comply with all regulations relating to wild horses
and burros.
Dated: June 24, 1996.
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
[FR Doc. 96-17487 Filed 7-09-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17485 Collection of Canadian Province of Origin Information on Customs Entry Records
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36318-36320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17485]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of the Census
15 CFR Part 30
[Docket No. 960606162-6162]
RIN 0607-AA21
Collection of Canadian Province of Origin Information on Customs
Entry Records
AGENCY: Bureau of the Census, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of the Census (Census) intends to direct the U.S.
Customs Service (Customs) to begin collecting information on Canadian
Province of Origin for imports from Canada. This information would be
required for all U.S. imports that originate in Canada, except for
imports of softwood lumber products that already require information on
Canadian Province of Manufacture. This action is taken to fulfill the
requirements of the 1987 agreement between the United States and Canada
under which the countries agreed to replace their requirements for
reporting export data by substituting exchanged import information.
DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before September 9,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments on this proposed rulemaking to
the Director, Bureau of the Census, Room 2049, Federal Building 3,
Washington, D.C. 20233. Direct all written comments on the paperwork
burden of the collection of information contained in this proposed rule
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Washington,
D.C. 20503 Attention: Desk Officer for Customs.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information
should be directed to C. Harvey Monk, Jr., Bureau of the Census,
Washington, D.C. 20233, by telephone on (301) 457-2255 or by fax on
(301) 457-2645. For information on the specific Customs reporting
requirements contact: J. Edgar Nichols, U.S. Customs Service, Room
6216, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229, by
telephone on(202) 927-1426 or by fax on (202) 927-0165.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Effective in January 1990, the United States and Canada each
replaced their requirements for reporting export data by agreeing to
substitute exchanged import information. This substitution of exchanged
import information allowed the countries to eliminate the requirements
that exporters in both countries provide separate export information on
the millions of shipments crossing the U.S./Canada border each year. A
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) implementing the exchange was signed
by the United States and Canada on July 29, 1987.
Under the terms of the MOU, the United States and Canada agreed to
collect several new data elements on their respective import records.
These elements while improving both countries' statistical data and
allowing elimination of export reporting are also essential to the
administration of the North American Free Trade Agreement. One of the
data elements that the United States agreed to collect is the Canadian
Province of Origin where the specific goods exported to the United
States were produced. Census has attempted in the past to derive this
information from related information now reported on Customs entry
records as part of the required Identification of the Foreign
Manufacturer. The quality of this derived information, however, has
proven unsatisfactory. In many cases the Province currently reported
does not identify the location where the goods were manufactured/
assembled, mined, grown, or otherwise produced. Instead, it represents
a corporate headquarters or the location of the Canadian vendor.
Proposed Requirement
In order to comply with the MOU, Census asks Customs to require the
two-letter designation of the Canadian Province of Origin to be
reported on U.S. entry summary records in lieu of the Country of
Origin. The Province of Origin is defined as the province where the
exported goods were originally manufactured/assembled, grown, mined, or
otherwise produced. For goods manufactured/assembled in Canada, with
the exception of softwood lumber, the Province of Origin would be that
in which the final manufacture/assembly is performed prior to exporting
that product to the United States. In cases where the Province in which
the merchandise was manufactured/assembled, grown, mined, or produced
is unknown, the Province in which the Canadian vendor is located may be
reported.
For all shipments of softwood lumber products classified under U.S.
Harmonized System tariff items 4407.1000, 4409.1010, 4409.1090, or
4409.1020, the Census Bureau began, effective April 5, 1996, to require
information on Canadian Province of Manufacture. This requirement was
made to allow the United States to carry out the requirements of an
agreement concluded with Canada on the amount of softwood lumber
exported to the United States annually. Since Canadian Province of
Manufacture is already required for these softwood lumber products, the
requirements proposed in this notice do not apply.
The reporting of the Province of Origin will apply to the paper as
well as Automated Broker Interface (ABI) entry summaries. For those
reporting on paper forms, the Province of Origin code is to replace the
Country of Origin on the Customs Form (CF) 7501 Summary Entry form.
This requirement would apply only for imports with Country of Origin
from Canada.
All electronic ABI Entry Summaries for imports originating in
Canada would also require the new Canadian Province of Origin code to
be reported in lieu of the Country of Origin. Currently the Country of
Origin is transmitted for each entry summary line item in the A40
record positions 6-7.
Proposed Collection
For imports from Canada only, the Province of Origin Code replaces
Country of Origin on the CF 7501, Summary Entry form and in positions
6-7 of the ABI A40 electronic record.
[[Page 36319]]
Valid Canadian Province/Territory Codes are:
XA--Alberta
XB--New Brunswick
XC--British Columbia
XM--Manitoba
XN--Nova Scotia
XO--Ontario
XP--Prince Edward Island
XQ--Quebec
XS--Saskatchewan
XT--Northwest Territories
XW--Newfoundland
XY--Yukon Territory
The authority to collect this information is provided under Title
13, United States Code, Section 301 (13 U.S.C. 301). This legislation
authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to collect from persons importing
into or exporting from the United States necessary or appropriate
information to foster, promote, develop, and further the commerce,
domestic and foreign, of the United States.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The collection of information on Canadian Province of Origin
supplements information currently required on the Customs paper form CF
7501 and the ABI automated electronic reporting form A40 for specific
softwood lumber imports from Canada. The new collection contained in
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has been submitted to the OMB by
Customs for review under Section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). For copies of the OMB submission, contact
J. Edgar Nichols, U.S. Customs Service, Room 6216, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229-0001, by telephone on (202) 927-
1426 or by fax (202) 927-0165.
Title: Customs Form 7501 Summary Entry Form and the Electronic ABI
Entry Summaries A40 Record.
OMB Number: 1515-0065.
Form Numbers: CF 7501 and CF 7501A and the automated counterpart,
the A40 record.
Type of Review: Regular Submission.
Affected Public: Approximately 150 Northern Border entry filers
with imports from Canada.
Estimated Time Per Response: We anticipate no increase in the
current 22-minute estimate to prepare the CF 7501 and 7501A Entry
Summary forms or the electronic counterpart, the Automated Commercial
System (ACS) A40 record. Province of Origin is currently available to
importers and the Province of Origin codes will replace the Country of
Origin code currently being collected.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hour Increase: None.
Estimated Record Keeping Time Increase: None.
Estimated Total Annual Cost Increase: None.
Comments are solicited on Customs' need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimate, ways to enhance the quality
of the information to be collected and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondents' burden. Persons wishing to comment on this
collection of information should direct their comments to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for
Customs. Comments must be filed with OMB within 60 days after this
notice is published in the Federal Register.
Rulemaking Requirements
This rule is exempt from all requirements of section 553 of the
Administrative Procedure Act because it deals with a foreign affairs
function (5 U.S.C. 553 (a)(1)). However, this rule is being published
as a proposed rule with an opportunity for public comment because of
the importance of the issues raised by this rulemaking.
Because a notice of proposed rulemaking is not required by 5 U.S.C.
553 or any other law, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required
and has not been prepared (5 U.S.C. 603 (a)).
This rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under
Executive Order 12612.
List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 30
Economic statistics, Foreign trade, Imports, Reporting and record
keeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, it is proposed that Part
30 be amended as follows:
PART 30--FOREIGN TRADE STATISTICS REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for 15 CFR Part 30 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 13 U.S.C. 301-307; Reorganization Plan
No. 5 of 1950 (3 CFR 1949-1953 Camp., 1004); Department of Commerce
Organization Order No. 35-2A. August 4, 1975, 40 CFR 42765
Subpart F--Special Provisions for Particular Types of Import
Transactions
2. Section 30.80 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 30.80 Imports from Canada.
(a) When certain softwood lumber products described under
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings
4407.1000, 4409.1010, 4409.1090, and 4409.1020 are imported from
Canada, import entry records are required to show a valid Canadian
Province of Manufacture Code. The Canadian Province of Manufacture is
determined on a first mill basis (the point at which the item was first
manufactured into a covered lumber product). For purposes of
determination, Province of Manufacture is the first province where the
subject merchandise underwent a change in tariff classification to the
tariff classes cited above. The Province of Manufacture Code should
replace the Country of Origin on the CF 7501 Summary Entry form. For
ACS entry summaries, the Canadian Province Code should be transmitted
in lieu of the Country of Origin in positions 6-7 of the A40 records.
These requirements would apply only for imports of softwood products
with Country of Origin Canada.
(b) All other imports from Canada, including softwood lumber
products not covered in paragraph (a) of this section, will require the
two-letter designation of the Canadian Province of Origin to be
reported on U.S. entry summary records. The Province of Origin is
defined as the Province where the exported goods were originally
manufactured/assembled, grown, mined, or otherwise produced. For goods
manufactured/assembled in Canada with the exception of the softwood
lumber described in paragraph (a) of this section, the Province of
Origin is that in which the final manufacture/assembly is performed
prior to exporting that product to the United States. In cases where
the province in which the merchandise was manufactured/assembled,
grown, mined, or produced is unknown, the province in which the
Canadian vendor is located can be reported. For those reporting on
paper forms the Province of Origin code is proposed to replace the
country of origin on the CF 7501 Summary Entry form.
(c) All electronic ABI Entry Summaries for imports originating in
Canada would also require the new Canadian Province of Origin code to
be reported in lieu of the Country of Origin. Currently, the Country of
Origin is transmitted for each entry summary line item in the A 40
record positions 6-7.
(d) The Province of Origin code replaces Country of Origin only for
imports from Canada.
Valid Canadian Province/Territory Codes are:
[[Page 36320]]
XA--Alberta
XB--New Brunswick
XC--British Columbia
XM--Manitoba
XN--Nova Scotia
XO--Ontario
XP--Prince Edward Island
XQ--Quebec
XS--Saskatchewan
XT--Northwest Territories
XW--Newfoundland
XY--Yukon Territory
Dated: July 3, 1996.
Bryant Benton,
Deputy Director, Bureau of the Census
[FR Doc. 96-17485 Filed 7-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17324 Approval of State Programs and Delegation of Federal Authorities
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36326-36328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17324]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-FRL-5531-2]
Approval of State Programs and Delegation of Federal Authorities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action revises the ``Approval of State Programs and
Delegation of Federal Authorities'' (subpart E). These amendments are
being made to improve the clarity of subpart E. Because the amendments
clarify regulatory text and serve to minimize administrative burden and
provide more flexibility to States using this rulemaking, the Agency
does not
[[Page 36327]]
anticipate receiving adverse comments. Consequently the amendments are
also being issued as a direct final rule. If no significant, timely
adverse comments are received, no further activity is contemplated in
relation to this proposed rule and the direct final rule in the final
rules section of this Federal Register will automatically go into
effect on the date specified in this rule. If significant timely
comments are received on any amendment, that amendment of the direct
final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received on that
amendment will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the
relevant portions of this proposed rule. Because the Agency will not
institute a second comment period on this proposed rule, any parties
interested in commenting should do so during this comment period.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before August 9, 1996,
unless a public hearing is requested by July 22, 1996. If a hearing is
requested, written comments must be received by August 26, 1996.
Public hearing. Anyone requesting a public hearing must contact the
EPA no later than July 22, 1996. If a hearing is held, it will take
place on July 25, 1996, beginning at 10 a.m.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102),
Attention Docket Number A-96-09 (see docket section below), Room M-
1500, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA
requests that a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed
below.
Public hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the
EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. Persons interested in attending the hearing or wishing
to present oral testimony should notify Ms. Pamela J. Smith, U.S. EPA,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711, telephone (919) 541-
5319.
Docket. Docket No. A-96-09, containing supporting information, is
available for public inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Waterside Mall, Room M-1500, First Floor, 401 M
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-7548 or 260-
7549. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gil Wood at (919) 541-5272 or Ms.
Sheila Q. Milliken at (919) 541-2625 Integrated Implementation Group,
Information Transfer and Program Integration Division (MD-12), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further supplemental information, the
detailed rationale, and the rule amendments, see the information
provided in the direct final rule in the final rules section of this
Federal Register.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements of the previously
promulgated rulemaking on subpart E were submitted to and approved by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). A copy of this Information
Collection Request (ICR) document (with an OMB approval control number
2060-0264) may be obtained from the Regulatory Information Division
(Code 2136), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
Today's changes to the rulemaking will have no significant impact
on the information collection burden estimates made previously.
Actually, the burden will be reduced slightly. Consequently, the
Information Collection Request has not been revised.
Executive Order 12866 Review
The subpart E rulemaking, promulgated on December 26, 1993 was
considered a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866 [58 FR 5173, dated October 4, 1993] and submitted to the OMB for
review. According to the executive order, a ``significant regulatory
action is one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, of State, local or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
This action is not considered a ``significant regulatory action''
within the meaning of this Executive Order. The amendments issued today
clarify the rule and add administrative requirements which increase the
flexibility to States in terms of gaining approval of their respective
State programs. The EPA concludes these amendments would have no
adverse impact and therefore, do not need to undergo OMB review.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires the identification
of potentially adverse impacts of Federal regulations upon small
business entities. The Act specifically requires the completion of a
regulatory flexibility analysis in those instances where small business
impacts are possible. Because this rulemaking imposes no adverse
economic impacts, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been
prepared.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 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, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. The UMRA generally excludes
from the definition of ``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' duties
that arise from participation in a voluntary Federal program. The EPA
has also determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate
that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State,
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector
in any one year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
[[Page 36328]]
Dated: June 26, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-17324 Filed 7-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17299 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36334-36346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17299]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 95-28; Notice 8]
RIN 2127-AF73
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices
and Associated Equipment
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend Standard No. 108, the Federal
motor vehicle safety standard on lighting, to afford an option to
existing headlamp aiming specifications which is intended to improve
the objectivity and accuracy of motor vehicle headlamp aim when
headlamps are aimed visually and/or optically. The proposal reflects
the consensus of NHTSA's Advisory Committee on Regulatory Negotiation
concerning the improvement of headlamp aimability performance and
visual/optical headlamp aiming. The Committee was composed of
representatives of government, industry, and consumer interest groups.
DATES: Comments are due October 8, 1996.
[[Page 36335]]
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to Docket No. 95-28; Notice 8 and must
be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590. (Docket hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.).
Do not send originals of comments to any person named below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (NHTSA Advisory Committee
representative) Steve Kratzke, Office of Safety Performance Standards,
NHTSA (Phone: 202-366-5203; FAX: 202-366-4329); (technical information)
Rich Van Iderstine, Office of Safety Performance Standards, NHTSA
(Phone: 202-366-5275; FAX: 202-366-4329); (legal information) Taylor
Vinson, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (Phone: 202-366-5263; FAX: 202-
366-3820).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 9, 1995, at 60 FR 30506, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a notice of intent to establish
an advisory committee (``the Committee'') for regulatory negotiation to
develop recommended specifications for altering the lower beam patterns
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective
Devices and Associated Equipment to be more sharply defined. Such a
pattern would facilitate visual aimability of headlamps. The notice
requested comment on membership, the interests affected by the
rulemaking, the issues the Committee should address, and the procedures
it should follow. The notice also announced that NHTSA had procured the
services of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to
facilitate the negotiations. The reader is referred to the notice of
June 9, 1995, for further information on these issues.
On the basis of comments received to the notice, NHTSA determined
that establishing an advisory committee on this subject would be
advantageous and in the public interest. In accordance with Section
9(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. I sec. 9(c),
NHTSA prepared a Charter for the establishment of a Negotiated
Rulemaking Advisory Committee. On April 17, 1995, the Office of
Management and Budget approved the Department's Advisory Committee Plan
for FY 1995 which included this advisory committee, and on July 6,
1995, the Secretary approved the Charter, authorizing the Committee to
begin negotiating the recommended changes.
Membership
In addition to a representative from NHTSA, the Committee consisted
of representatives from the following organizations:
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
American Automobile Manufacturers Association
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.
Automotive Service Association
Groupe de Travail ``Bruxelles 1952''
Hopkins Manufacturing Corporation
Japanese Automobile Standards Internationalization Center
Liaison Committee for the Manufacturers of Automobile Equipment and
Spare Parts
National Automobile Dealers Association
National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
Society of Automotive Engineers, Road Illumination Devices Standards
Committee
Traffic Control Materials Division, 3M Corporation
Wagner Lighting Division of Cooper Industries
In accordance with the directives for negotiated rulemaking, these
participants represent all ``interests'' identified by NHTSA as
affected by a final rule on headlamp aimability: the consumer; Federal
and State governments; American, European, and Asian manufacturers of
motor vehicles and headlamps; the automobile service industry; and
manufacturers of headlamp aiming equipment and traffic control devices.
Meetings
Utilizing the services of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service (FMCS) as facilitators/mediators, NHTSA convened the first
Committee on July 25, 1995. The Committee held an additional series of
meetings in September, October, and November 1995, and in January,
March, April, and May 1996. Under the direction of the FMCS mediators
the Committee received training in the interest-based negotiation
process. The Committee used the interest-based negotiation process to
fulfill its charter. At its final meeting prior to publication, on May
29, 1996, the Committee reached a consensus on the rationale and
proposed regulatory text for this NPRM. The Committee meetings were
open to the public, and NHTSA placed the minutes into a public docket
(Docket No. 95-28).
NHTSA's Perspective of Headlamp Aimability
At its simplest expression, proper aim is required to ensure that
headlamps installed on motor vehicles fulfill the functions intended by
their designers. There are three principal methods of aiming headlamps.
The first is visual: project the beam upon a vertical surface and
adjust the headlamp as determined by an observer; the second is
optical: project the beam into a device that is placed in front of the
headlamp and adjust the headlamp until the beam conforms to the
parameters of the device; the third is mechanical: without activation
of the headlamp, determine proper aim through the use of equipment
external to the headlamp. Mechanical aim was introduced in 1955 by the
automotive industry in response to aiming concerns expressed by the
states. These concerns were related to visual and optical and involved
ease of use, repeatability, and accuracy of aim.
A constant requirement of Standard No. 108 from its effective date
on January 1, 1968, has been the ability of motor vehicle headlamps to
be mechanically aimed. Mechanical aiming was necessary because visual/
optical aim of the lower beam pattern in use in the United States was
difficult. Sealed beam headlamps, the only type of headlamps permitted
until 1983, are required to have one of four aiming-pad patterns on the
lens. These patterns consist of three raised aiming pads arranged as a
triangle at specified points on the lens which provide a precise
interface between the headlamp and a mechanical aiming device attached
to the headlamp during the aiming verification process. The mechanical
aiming device provides information so that the aiming planes of the
headlamps, defined by the three aiming pads, can be adjusted to be
parallel with each other and perpendicular to the road surface. Because
a headlamp's beam pattern is designed to be correctly aimed when the
aiming plane is oriented as stated, the beam pattern can be aimed
without the need for illuminating the headlamp.
With the advent of replaceable bulb headlamps in 1983, restrictions
on the size and shape of headlamps were no longer required, and two
additional configurations of mechanical aiming pads were permitted.
This necessitated new adapters and also adjustable adapters for
mechanical aiming devices used with replaceable bulb headlamps.
Initially, NHTSA required that vehicles with replaceable bulb headlamps
also be equipped with aim adapters until the adapters could be supplied
to the service industry. However, this design
[[Page 36336]]
freedom resulted in a proliferation of headlamp aimer adapters, adding
complexity and error to the previously simple and accurate process of
mechanical headlamp aim. In addition, headlamps became smaller, and it
became increasingly difficult for the traditional type of mechanical
aiming device to measure aim.
In response to this problem, since June 8, 1989, NHTSA has allowed
a method of mechanical aim that is no longer dependent upon an external
applied mechanical aiming device but one which is accomplished by
mechanical aiming equipment on the vehicle itself. NHTSA terms this a
``vehicle headlamp aiming device'' or ``VHAD''. A VHAD is equipment
installed on the vehicle which is used for determining headlamp aim
mechanically. In its most common form, these are bubble vials on the
headlamp housing which have a closely specified geometric (mechanical)
relationship to a beam's vertical location. When the bubble is within a
specific area indicated on the housing, the headlamp's vertical aim is
correct. A similar mechanical reference marking system is used for
correct horizontal aim. One attractive feature of VHADs is that they
provide a simple way for anyone to determine proper aim and to correct
misaim. But, in the event of damage involving the headlamp, VHADs may
have to be replaced, with recalibration by a person other than the
vehicle manufacturer who initially installed them. NHTSA believes, and
the Committee concurred, that distributors, dealers, and service
facilities do not have the ability to recalibrate replacement equipment
to the same accuracy as the manufacturer. VHADs add to vehicle costs,
and not all vehicles are equipped with them; therefore visual aim and
optical aim remain important.
As NHTSA understands it, state inspection stations and private
repair shops are less likely today to use mechanical aiming devices
and, for the most part, choose to aim headlamps either visually or with
optical aimers. Given the lack of sharply defined visual cues in the
lower beam pattern in headlamps that are designed to conform to
Standard No. 108, aiming visually or with an optical aiming device
yields variable results. As a consequence, there are increasing numbers
of misaimed headlamps in the nation's vehicle fleet, with a higher risk
of glare and inadequate illumination of the roadway including traffic
control devices.
When NHTSA published a general notice asking for candidates for
regulatory negotiation, the American Automobile Manufacturers
Association (AAMA) identified headlamp aimability as its first choice.
NHTSA agreed with this recommendation. The NPRM that is published today
is the result of negotiated rulemaking. The anticipated result is a
final rule that specifies an option to mechanical aiming for easy,
accurate headlamp aiming.
The Process Followed by the Committee and Its Recommendations
As part of the interest-based negotiation process, the Committee
first defined issues for the regulatory negotiation. The Committee then
identified its interests and finally reached consensus on criteria for
the regulatory standards.
The Committee used the interest-based process to identify the basic
issue as ``what standard will permit the visual/optical aiming of lower
beam headlamps''. Subsequently the visual/optical aimability of the
upper beam was added.
The Committee-defined interests were divided into three main
themes: ``Safety'', ``Service Sector and Manufacturer Needs'', and
``Visual/Optical''. A summary of each issue is as follows:
A. Safety: Any method of ensuring visual and or optical aim of low
beam headlamps that involves the proposed adoption of a new Federal
standard for lower beam headlamp photometry must not degrade , and
desirably will enhance, the safety performance of the existing traffic
control nighttime driving environment. A visually/optically aimable
headlamp beam pattern shall ensure adequate driver control and
avoidance of hazardous features (pedestrians, roadside objects, etc.),
in the nighttime driving environment, without creating disabling glare.
B. Service Sector and Manufacturing Needs: Implementation of a
visual aim standard must consider the following service sector
(dealers, repair garages, service stations, state inspection stations,
body shops) and manufacturing (vehicles, headlamps, and aiming
equipment) needs: simplicity, user friendliness, repeatability,
reliability, cost effectiveness, equipment, compatible aiming methods.
C. Visual/Optical: The development of the aiming standard should
consider other established aiming standards.
The Committee then developed six criteria as critical for the
development of a consensus standard for visual/optical aim. These
criteria are:
1. Accuracy: proper placement of beam pattern.
2. Repeatability: repeatable aimability.
3. Simplicity: performable by operators of varying skill levels.
4. Reasonable cost: no unreasonable costs for manufacturers, the
service and inspection industry, or consumers.
5. Critical beam characteristics: preservation of beam
characteristics for driver control, avoidance of road hazards and
pedestrians, detection and legibility of traffic control devices, and
restriction of disabling glare.
6. Ambient light conditions: achievement of acceptable aim within a
range of ambient light conditions at manufacturer and service
facilities.
The Committee then determined that the new visual/optical aim
standard should be an option to current mechanical and VHAD aim
specifications in Standard No. 108, and usable with all headlamps:
sealed beam, integral beam, replaceable bulb, and combination-type
headlamps. Therefore, the Committee developed an outline to be used by
NHTSA for the NPRM.
To achieve its goals, the Committee decided that:
A. the lower beam pattern must have a wider illumination,
B. a horizontal visual cue must be added to either the left or
right side of the lower beam,
C. the basic characteristics of the lower beam pattern must not be
changed,
D. all lenses for visually/optically aimable headlamps must be
marked to ensure that persons aiming the headlamps know that the
headlamp can be correctly aimed using a visual or optical aiming
procedure, and
E. existing requirements for VHADs must be amended to add a
specification currently missing which results in aim error.
Proposed Requirements and Their Rationales
The Committee recommends and NHTSA proposes that the visually/
optically aimable lower beam of a headlamp meet the following criteria:
A. Vertical Aim of Lower Beam. A visual cue (cutoff) is required in
the lower beam pattern to permit accurate aiming. The cutoff marks a
transition between the areas of higher and lower luminous intensities.
The cutoff in the lower beam pattern is a horizontal line composed of
maximum vertical logarithmic gradients of the illumination of the
aiming screen.
Vertical aim requires both a laboratory specification for headlamps
before installation and a field specification for headlamps after
installation. This notice proposes that the laboratory specifications
be incorporated into Standard No. 108. The field
[[Page 36337]]
specifications represent the Committee's recommendations to all persons
who perform visual/optical headlamp aiming in the field.#
1. Laboratory Specification for the Vertical Visual Aim of the
Lower Beam. The Committee, in establishing and recommending to NHTSA a
laboratory specification for visual aim of the lower beam, agreed that
several factors must be considered to ensure accurate and repeatable
results that would also relate to the requirements for field
aimability. Accuracy for laboratory aim was specified to be within
0.1 degree. This was based on the test equipment
positioning capability of 0.01 degree along with the
associated lamp-to-lamp and laboratory-to-laboratory variances. The
Committee agreed that the specification for the gradient in the
proposal be based on a required 0.1 degree laboratory aim
accuracy and a 0.25 degree field aim accuracy with confidence limits of
2 sigma (95% of all aims will be in the range).
A University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI)
study titled ``Visual Aiming of European and U.S. Low-Beam Headlamps''
(Report No. UMTRI-91-34, by Sivak, Flannagan, Chandra, and Gellatly)
provided information which led to the establishment of the necessary
gradient level. In the study by UMTRI, a wide range of lamps were
tested, some of which were not designed for visual aiming. A subsequent
study of visually aimable headlamps conducted at GE by the Society of
Automotive Engineers' (SAE) Beam Pattern Task Force (in developing SAE
J1735 ``Harmonized Vehicle Headlamp Performance Requirements'') found
the standard deviation of vertical aim to be smaller than the standard
deviation in the UMTRI study. Based on that study, SAE J1735 specifies
a design value of 80% contrast based on 0.2 degree spacing of test
points which corresponds to a value of 0.13 in log units with a 0.1
degree spacing of test points. The Committee concluded that a gradient
of 0.13 would satisfy its goal for field aim accuracy.
Measurement of the specific gradients may be carried out using
traditional photometric measurement equipment; however, photometric
distance may vary between companies. It was decided that a procedure
which has been developed by the Groupe de Travail ``Bruxelles 1952''
(GTB) Short-term Scientific Studies Working Group (SSST WG) would
provide a baseline system for this test. This may be found in ``Draft
Minutes of the Meeting held at Budapest 1995 October 3'' on file in the
docket as attachment 3-9 to the Committee's minutes of Meeting No. 3.
The cutoff can be on either the right or left side of the lower
beam pattern. When so located, it provides the necessary reference for
placing the beam in the appropriate vertical location for correct aim.
In order to achieve a cutoff in a beam, there must be a distinct
difference in illumination levels above and below the cutoff. This may
be achieved by numerous methods in the design of a headlamp. For the
purposes defined by the Committee, a horizontally-oriented cutoff is
necessary. Based on work done by the SAE Beam Pattern Task Force,
UMTRI, Commision Internationale de l'Eclairage Working Group on Vehicle
Lighting (CIE TC4.10) (``Definition of the Vertical Cut-off of Vehicle
Headlights'' draft 1993-3-15), and the GTB SSST WG, and reviewed by the
Committee, the method for describing the cutoff is as follows.
Scientific studies by Blackwell, Olson, Forbes, Sivak, Flannigan,
et al., have shown that the human eye responds to the logarithm (to
base 10) of the gradient of screen luminance. This mathematical
expression simulates in the laboratory where human vision perceives the
cutoff on a screen during field aiming. A vertical scan of the lower
beam pattern at a specified number of degrees to the right or left of
the headlamp beam pattern's vertical axis, where the cutoff is located,
is taken to gather data on the intensity values. Thes data are then
analyzed using the mathematical expression to determine where the
greatest rate of change of illumination occurs; the vertical location
of the cutoff is thus defined. For example, a person could use a
goniophotometer to record data in small vertical increments at the
locations at 2.5 degrees left or 2.0 degrees right in order to
determine the cutoff location.
For effective field aiming, the cutoff needs to be finitely long so
that the person looking at the cutoff has a sufficient cue to find it.
This range should extend at least one degree on each side of the
specified measurement point of the cutoff and should be approximately
straight and horizontal.
The cutoff on the left side of the beam pattern can be achieved by
putting more light below the horizontal on the left rather than
reducing the intensity of light above the cutoff. This added light
provides more illumination to detect objects on the left side of the
beam pattern and more uniformity of the total light output from the
vehicle. The light above the horizontal would not be decreased. The
right side of the beam needs no such enhancement to achieve an adequate
gradient for the cutoff. In addition to the above, these changes cause
small effects in other areas of the beam that will be addressed below.
The Committee recommends and NHTSA proposes the following changes
to the existing photometric figures in Standard No. 108 for all
headlamps designed for visual/optical aiming:
(a) elimination of the 0.5 deg. D-1.5 deg. L to L test points,
(b) elimination of the 1.0 deg. D-6.0 deg. L test point,
(c) addition of an 0.86 deg. D-3.5 deg. L test point with intensity
requirements of 1800 cd. minimum, and 12000 cd. maximum, and
(d) addition of an 0.86 deg D-V test point with intensity
requirements of 4500 cd minimum,
(e) addition of an 0.6 deg D-1.3 deg R test point replacing the
current test point at 0.5 deg D-1.5 deg R with intensity requirements
shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replaced Test Point: 0.5 deg. D-
Proposed test point: 0.6 deg. Proposed Source 1.5 deg. R Source of requirement
D-1.3 deg. R (cd minimum) of requirement ------------------------------------ (Std. No. 108)
(Std. No. 108) cd minimum cd maximum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10000......................... new Fig. 15va & 10000........... 20000........... Fig. 15A & 17A.
17va.
10000......................... new Fig. 27va & 8000............ 20000........... Fig. 27 & 28.
28va.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f) and modification of the 4 degree D-V test point in the Figure
15va lower beam maximum candela column from 7000 cd to 10000 cd.
In Figures 27 and 28 of Standard No. 108 the maximum value at 0.5
degree D-1.5 degrees L is 2500 cd. In Figures
[[Page 36338]]
15A and 17A, the maximum value at 0.5 degree D-1.5 degrees L is 3000
cd. The value of the 1.0 degree D-6.0 degrees L test point is 750 cd
minimum, and it becomes superfluous because of the additional
illumination provided by the new test point specified at 0.86 degree D-
3.5 degrees L.
The three test points: 0.86 degree D-3.5 degrees L; 0.86 degree D-
V; and 0.6 degree D-1.3 degree R; have all been the subject of lower
beam headlamp harmonization activities with GTB, GRE, JASIC, and SAE. A
research study, UMTRI Report 94-27 ``Evaluation of the SAE J1735 Draft
Proposal for a Harmonized Low-Beam Headlighting Pattern'' reports that
these three test points contribute to better performance of the lower
beam headlamp.
In the past there has been one ``seeing light'' test point at 0.5
degree D-1.5 degree R. This is being replaced by three new ``seeing
light'' test points: 0.6 degree D-1.3 degrees R; 0.86 degree D-V; and
0.86 degree D-3.5 degree L. The new 0.86 degree D-V test point with the
4500 cd minimum will increase uniformity of the beam pattern below the
horizontal line between the high intensity zones on the left and right.
The new 0.6 degree D-1.3 degree R test point represents a relocation of
a current test point by 0.1 degree D (from 0.5 degree D to 0.6 degree
D) and 0.2 degree L (from 1.5 degree R to 1.3 degree R). These changes
represent a significant improvement in providing more light to the left
side of the beam pattern.
There is a maximum (20000 cd) requirement at the 0.5 degree D-1.5
degree R test point. Because of significantly greater control of
minimum and maximum illumination above the horizontal axis, there is no
continuing need for a maximum at this location.
The recommendation to modify the test point value at 4D-V in Fig.
15va from 7000 cd maximum to 10000 cd maximum is based on the
substantial increase of light resulting from the test point
modifications discussed above which extend the high intensity zone on
the right side of the beam pattern to the left side of the beam. The
previous test point value at 0.5 degree D-1.5 degrees L to L limited
not only the light to the left region of the roadway, but also to the
foreground area. Directing more light to the left will increase
foreground light levels. Studies performed by UMTRI have shown that
very high levels of foreground light can depreciate the driver's
seeing-distance performance. A modest increase in the maximum candela
level at this test point from 7000 to 10000 will allow the additional
left-lane light yet not create undue foreground illumination.
The Committee believes that the compromise between ``seeing light''
and glare protection requires an asymmetric beam pattern. The beam
pattern should be lower on the left to protect oncoming drivers from
glare. This is consistent with both the current U.S. and European beam
pattern design. Therefore the Committee recommends and NHTSA proposes
that the cutoff location be positioned at 0.4 degree below the H-H line
for headlamps designed to be aimed using the left side of the beam
pattern and at the H-H line for headlamps designed to be aimed using
the right side of the beam pattern. The 0.4 degree down aim on the left
side would cause the top edge of the main part of the beam pattern on
the left to intersect the road surface at approximately 90 m. (300
feet) from the vehicle with headlamps mounted at 635 mm. (25 inches)
above the road surface. This distance is increased from present
headlamps that are limited by the 0.5 degree D-1.5 degrees L to L test
point that exists today. The H-H line was selected for the right side
location of the cutoff so that the high intensity zone of the beam is
properly placed for adequate seeing distance and because glare is less
of a concern on the right side.
The specific mathematical expression for identifying the cutoff is:
G = log E()-log E(+0.1), where ``G'' is the gradient,
``E'' is illumination and ``'' is the vertical angular
position. The maximum value of the gradient ``G'' determines the
angular location of the cutoff.
2. Field Specification for Visual Aim of Lower Beam. As noted
above, the field specification will not be incorporated into Standard
No. 108 but represents the Committee's recommendation that should be
used by persons in the field who will be aiming visually/optically
aimable headlamps. The goal of this specification is to assure that a
procedure for accurately aiming visually/optically aimable headlamps is
available for use by people who need to aim headlamps. The intent of
the Committee for this specification is to make it as similar to
existing practices as possible. To this end, the practice in SAE J599
``Lighting Inspection Code'' and the AAMVA ``Vehicle Inspection
Handbook'', as well as studies done by NHTSA, UMTRI and JASIC, were
used to develop the specification. The Committee made decisions about
the field specification that are incorporated below.
a. Distance.
(i) Visual aim shall be performed at not less than 7.5 m. (this
value is a rounded down conversion from the 25-foot distance typical of
field aim using a screen). The 7.5 m. distance is measured from the
front of the headlamp lens to the viewing screen.
(ii) Optical aim shall be performed at the distance specified by
the manufacturer of the optical aiming device.
b. Accuracy. The field aiming procedure shall be capable of placing
the cutoff within 0.25 degree.
c. Ambient Light. The ambient light level during the aiming process
affects the accuracy of aiming headlamps installed on motor vehicles.
The ambient light level should be not more than 110 lux (10 foot-
candle) measured vertically at the screen surface around the H-V point
for each lamp.
d. Floor. The surface upon which the vehicle rests is flat and
approximately level.
e. Screen. The screen upon which headlamp beams are projected is
perpendicular to the floor and the vehicle's longitudinal axis, flat,
uniformly light in color, unobstructed, and wide and high enough to
accommodate the vehicle beam patterns to be aimed. The screen should be
wide enough to provide at least 1 m. of space outboard of the vehicle's
headlamp spacing.
(i) Placement of the horizontal reference line on the screen for
lower beam headlamps marked ``VOL'' (the symbol is explained later in
this notice): 52 mm. with a screen at 7.5 m. (2.1 inches at 24.6 feet)
below the height of the optical axis of the headlamp (this represents
approximately 0.4 degree down coincident with the laboratory
specification).
(ii) Placement of the horizontal reference line on the screen for
lower beam headlamps marked ``VOR'': at the height of the optical axis
of the headlamp (coincident with the laboratory specification).
(iii) Placement of each of the two vertical reference lines on the
screen for lower beam headlamps marked either ``VOL'' or ``VOR'': at
the vertical centerline of each lower beam headlamp.
f. Aim Procedure. Aim the cutoff vertically so that it is centered
on the horizontal reference line. This is correct aim. Aim inspection
limits are 100 mm. (4 in.). Note: only headlamps with a
VHAD will be horizontally adjustable. (When horizontal aim is non-
adjustable, horizontal aim will not be compromised because most state
laws require that headlamps be correctly aimed at the time of the first
sale of the vehicle. Further, proper repair of collision-damaged
vehicles will assure correct
[[Page 36339]]
placement of headlamps and thus maintain proper horizontal aim.)
g. Reduction in Vertical Aim Inspection Limits. The Committee
believes that an improved beam cutoff allows some reduction in the
vertical inspection limits. For instance, many state aim inspection
requirements prescribe tolerances for mechanically aimed headlamps
which allow the beam to vary 4 inches at 25 feet measuring
distance (0.76 degree) as stated in f. above. The Committee
believes that a reduction of this tolerance range is feasible for lower
beam headlamps marked ``VOR'' and ``VOL'' and urges the SAE and the
states to investigate and implement a uniformly reduced vertical aim
inspection limit for these types of headlamps.
B. Horizontal Aim of Lower Beam.
1. Eliminating Horizontal Aim Adjustability. Horizontal aimability
is mandatory for mechanically-aimed headlamps under Standard No. 108.
Because the lower beam of a headlamp designed to conform to Standard
No. 108 does not have any visual cues for achieving correct horizontal
aim when aimed visually or optically, and because it is not possible to
add such visual features without damaging the beam pattern, horizontal
aim should be either fixed and non-adjustable, or have a horizontal
VHAD.
When horizontal aim is non-adjustable, horizontal aim will not be
compromised because most state laws require that headlamps be correctly
aimed at the time of the first sale of the vehicle. Generally, the
vehicle's manufacturer accepts the responsibility for assuring correct
aim of headlamps on new motor vehicles. Further, proper realignment of
front-end components of collision-damaged vehicles will assure correct
placement of headlamps and thus maintain proper horizontal aim. Thus,
no further specifications are necessary for field use, except to note
that horizontal aim may not be adjustable on some lamps marked ``VOR''
or ``VOL'' on the lens.
Standard No. 108 specifies for the lower beam, test points at 15
and 9 degrees left and right, with minimum candela of 850 and 1000
(test points 15 and 9 degrees, Figures 15A and 17A) and 700 and 750
(test points 15 and 9 degrees, Figures 27 and 28). NHTSA proposes new
Figures 15va, 17va, 27va, and 28va in which these values are increased.
New test points to be added at 20 degrees left and right further widen
the beam. In addition to the substitution of the above mentioned 0.86D-
3.5L test point for the 0.5D-1.5L to L, to facilitate the cutoff, these
changes make the new beam pattern less sensitive to horizontal
positioning. The proposed modifications and additions are:
9 deg L&R-2 deg D......................... 1250 cd. min.
15 deg L&R-2 deg D........................ 1000 cd. min.
20 deg L&R-4 deg D........................ 300 cd. min.
These locations and values were taken from SAE J1735 which achieves a
wider beam pattern as a result of these test points.
2. Horizontal Aim of Lower Beam for Laboratory Photometry tests.
The headlamp shall be mounted onto a fixture which simulates its actual
design orientation on any vehicle for which the headlamp is intended.
The fixture, with the headlamp installed, shall be attached to the
goniometer table in such a way that the fixture alignment axes are
coincident with the goniometer axes. Shimming or adjustment of the
headlamp's attachment to the test fixture to comply with the
photometric requirements is not allowed. If there is a VHAD, the aim of
the headlamp shall be adjusted, using the headlamp's horizontal aiming
adjusters so that the VHAD reads zero. When the headlamp has been aimed
vertically, the lamp is ready to be tested for photometric compliance.
C. Vertical Aim of Upper Beam. As with vertical aim of the lower
beam, vertical aim of the upper beam requires both a laboratory
specification for headlamps before installation and a field
specification for headlamps after installation; however, the aim of the
upper beam is not nearly as critical as it is for the lower beam. The
notice proposes that the laboratory specification be incorporated into
Standard No. 108 for visually/optically aimable headlamps. For a
headlamp that incorporates both a lower beam and an upper beam, the
laboratory procedure and the field procedure for upper beam are not
applicable, because the headlamp must be aimed using the lower beam,
and, by design, both beams are photometered in that position.
For a headlamp that has only an upper beam, the following apply:
1. Laboratory Specification for Vertical Visual Aim of Upper Beam.
The vertical aim of the upper beam shall be adjusted so that the
maximum beam intensity is located on the H-H axis.
2. Laboratory Specification for Horizontal Visual Aim of Upper
Beam. The horizontal aim of the upper beam shall be adjusted so that
the maximum beam intensity is located on the V-V axis unless the
headlamp has fixed horizontal aim or a VHAD. In these cases, it shall
be mounted onto a fixture which simulates its actual design orientation
on any vehicle for which the headlamp is intended. The fixture, with
the headlamp installed, shall be attached to the goniometer table in
such a way that the fixture alignment axes are coincident with the
goniometer axes. Shimming or adjustment of the headlamp's attachment to
the test fixture to comply with the photometric requirements is not
allowed. If there is a VHAD, the aim of the headlamp shall be adjusted,
using the headlamp's horizontal aiming adjusters so that the VHAD reads
zero. When the headlamp has been aimed vertically, the lamp is ready to
be tested for photometric compliance.
3. Field Specification for Visual Aim of Upper Beam. As noted
above, the field specification will not be incorporated into Standard
No. 108 but represents the Committee's recommendation that should be
used by persons in the field who will be aiming visually/optically
aimable headlamps. The goal of this specification is to assure that a
procedure for accurately aiming visually/optically aimable headlamps is
available for use by people who need to aim headlamps. The intent of
the Committee for this specification is to make it as similar to
existing practices as possible. To this end, the practice in SAE J599
``Lighting Inspection Code'' and the AAMVA ``Vehicle Inspection
Handbook'', were used to develop the specification. The Committee made
decisions about the field specification that are incorporated below.
a. Distance.
(i) Visual aim shall be performed at not less than 7.5 m. (this
value is a rounded down conversion from the 25-foot distance typical of
field aim using a screen). The 7.5 m. distance is measured from the
front of the headlamp lens to the viewing screen.
(ii) Optical aim shall be performed at the distance specified by
the manufacturer of the optical aiming device.
b. Accuracy. The field aiming procedure shall be capable of placing
the high intensity zone of the upper beam within 0.3 degree
vertically and 0.6 degree horizontally.
c. Ambient Light. The ambient light level during the aiming process
affects the accuracy of aiming headlamps installed on motor vehicles.
The ambient light level adequate for visually/optically aiming the
lower beam is amply low enough for accurate aiming of the upper beam.
d. Floor. The surface upon which the vehicle rests is flat and
approximately level.
e. Screen. The screen upon which headlamp beams are projected is
perpendicular to the floor and the
[[Page 36340]]
vehicle's longitudinal axis, flat, uniformly light in color,
unobstructed, and wide and high enough to accommodate the vehicle beam
patterns to be aimed. The screen should be wide enough to provide at
least 1 m. of space outboard of the vehicle's headlamp spacing.
(i) Placement of the horizontal reference lines on the screen for
upper beam headlamps marked ``VO'': at the height of the optical axis
of the headlamp.
(ii) Placement of the vertical reference lines on the screen for
upper beam headlamps marked ``VO'': each reference line separated
horizontally from the point of projection of the vehicle's longitudinal
axis on the screen, by one half the distance separating the optical
axes of the upper beam headlamps on the vehicle.
f. Aim Procedure. Adjust the aiming screws so that the high
intensity zone is centered at the intersection of the horizontal and
vertical reference lines on the screen and within the allowable
tolerances of 100mm (4 in.). Note: only headlamps with a
VHAD will be horizontally adjustable. (When horizontal aim is non-
adjustable, horizontal aim will not be compromised because most state
laws require that headlamps be correctly aimed at the time of the first
sale of the vehicle. Further, proper repair of collision damaged
vehicles will assure correct placement of headlamps and thus maintain
proper horizontal aim.)
D. Movable Reflector Headlamps. Movable reflector headlamps have a
lens and headlamp housing that does not move with respect to the
surrounding car structure when headlamps are aimed. Therefore the range
of headlamp aim limits does not need to be as large to cover repairs
from vehicle collisions. Requirements for the aiming of movable
reflector headlamps have been clarified and expanded to cover headlamps
which are visually/optically aimable. The vertical aim range limits
will now cover only the full range of pitch on the vehicle on which the
headlamp system is installed. (Full range of pitch on the vehicle is
defined in S7.8.3 of Standard No. 108.) When horizontal aim is
incorporated in a headlamp the horizontal aim range limits will remain
2.5 degrees. Photometry will then be done over the applicable aim
limits used for the headlamp system.
E. Marking Requirements
1. Headlamp Optical Axis Mark. The accuracy and reliability of
headlamp aim depends upon the correct placement of aiming equipment in
front of the vehicle and its headlamps. To assure that this placement
is correct and precise, it is necessary for the headlamps to have an
indication of the optical axis to act as a geometric reference for
measuring distances to the floor and between the headlamps and the
vehicle's longitudinal axis. This may be done by a mark on the interior
or exterior of the lens, or by a mark or central structure on the
interior or exterior of the headlamp. Thus, Standard No. 108 should be
changed to require that a headlamp have this mark.
While this is necessary for visual/optical aim headlamps, it is
also desirable for all headlamps because people who aim headlamps use
visual/optical aim even though today's headlamps are not designed to be
aimed by this method. In the interest of promoting correct aim, this
optical axis mark is recommended for all future headlamp designs. This
proposal may require changes in headlamps for existing production
vehicles, however it is not intended to be a retroactive requirement.
Adequate leadtime is required for this proposal. Commenters are invited
to discuss leadtime concerns.
2. Visual/Optical Aimability Identification mark. Marking of
headlamps would indicate that the lamp is visually/optically aimable
according to the means specified in the final rule. Thus, Standard No.
108 would require that the visible part of the lens of each original
and replacement equipment headlamp and headlamp lens, and of each
original equipment and replacement equipment beam contributor, designed
to be visually/optically aimable, manufactured on or after the
effective date of the final rule, be marked with the symbols ``VOL'',
``VOR'', or ``VO'' either horizontally or vertically. The Committee
determined that ``VOR'' and ``VO'' respectively should be the only
marking used for all lower beam and upper beam sealed beam and integral
beam headlamp types existing before the effective date of the final
rule resulting from this NPRM if these types are ever redesigned to be
visually/optically aimable. This will ensure that replacement headlamps
are identically marked.
NHTSA proposes that manufacturers which introduce new visually/
optically aimed headlamp types after the effective date be required to
determine the aim method and apply the required marking. This aim
method and marking must be followed by all subsequent manufacturers of
this headlamp type.
A lower beam headlamp would be marked ``VOL'' if the manufacturer
designs it to be visually/optically aimed using the left side of the
lower beam pattern, and ``VOR'' if using the right side. If a sealed
beam or an integral beam headlamp system is in production before the
publication of the final rule, the lens of any lamp in such system that
is manufactured on or after the effective date of the final rule would
be marked ``VOR'', and would have the gradient on the right side, if
the system is ever redesigned so that its lamps are visually/optically
aimable. A headlamp would be marked ``VO'' if it is solely an upper
beam headlamp and intended to be visually/optically aimed.
In accordance with other marking requirements of Standard No. 108,
the letters would be not less than 3 mm high.
Allowing Existing Headlamps to Use the New Photometrics
The Committee also decided that the improved photometrics
represented by Figures 15va, 17va, 27va or 28va should be available to
manufacturers of headlamps that are not visually/optically aimable
within the meaning of this rulemaking action, but which presently are
designed to meet the photometrics of Figures 15A, 17A, 27 or 28. This
raises no safety issues regarding glare or compatibility of replacement
equipment, and NHTSA is proposing amendments to the text and Figure 26
appropriate to implement the Committee's decision.
Other Issues
Independent of the recommendations of the Committee to NHTSA, the
agency would like to have comment regarding the costs, benefits and
other impacts associated with the following issues.
(1) For the express purpose of simplifying the requirements of the
Standard No. 108 to reduce the burden on regulated persons, please
comment on the possibility and timing of an eventual mandatory
requirement for having only visually/optically aimable headlamps. Such
an action would eliminate at least four Figures (15A, 17A, 27 and 28)
and significant text associated with mechanical and VHAD aiming.
(2) For additional significant gains toward simplification and
burden reduction that could be achieved, please comment on the
possibility and timing of using only Figures 15va and 17va as the only
allowed photometric performance at sometime in the future. This can
eliminate another three Figures (26, 27va and 28va) and many pages of
text associated with explanations of how to select the correct
photometric performance.
[[Page 36341]]
Proposed Effective Dates
The amendments that allow headlamps to be visually/optically
aimable as an alternative to existing aimability requirements would be
effective 60 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register.
The amendments to S7.8.1 amending the fiducial marking to require
an optical axis mark for headlamps that are not visually/optically
aimable would become effective September 1 of the year following one
year after publication of the final rule. For example, if the final
rule is published after September 1, 1996 and before September 1, 1997,
the effective date of the rule would be September 1, 1998. There would
be no retroactive effect on existing headlamps or their replacements.
The amendments to S7.8.5.2(c) amending the calibration requirements for
the VHAD also would become effective September 1 of the year following
one year after publication of the final rule. There would be no
retroactive effect on existing headlamps or their replacements.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking action was not reviewed under Executive Order
12866. Further, it has been determined that the rulemaking action is
not significant under Department of Transportation regulatory policies
and procedures. The purpose of the rulemaking action is to provide an
alternative and more objective means of determining the accuracy of
headlamp aim. As an alternative, the provisions would not be mandatory
unless a manufacturer chose to install visually/optically aimable
headlamps on a motor vehicle that it intends to sell. Because of
offsetting benefits to vehicle manufacturers when choosing this option,
it is likely that greater benefits than costs will occur. The costs of
the final rule would be so minimal as not to warrant preparation of a
full regulatory evaluation.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. It is not anticipated that a final
rule based on this proposal would have a significant effect upon the
environment. The composition of headlamps would not change from those
presently in production.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The agency has also considered the impacts of this rulemaking
action in relation to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. For the reasons
stated above and below, I certify that this rulemaking action would not
have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis has been
prepared. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment,
those affected by the rulemaking action, are generally not small
businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This rulemaking action has also been analyzed in accordance with
the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and
NHTSA has determined that this rulemaking action does not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
Civil Justice
A final rule based on this proposal would not have any retroactive
effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety
standard is in effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety
standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not
identical to the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a
procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or
revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not
require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other
administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
Request for Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.
It is requested that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512).
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal
will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue
to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket
after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons
continue to examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Tires.
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 571 would be amended
as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 571 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.108 would be amended by:
a. amending Section S4 to add new definitions: ``Cutoff'' and
``Visually/optically aimable headlamp'' in alphabetical order to read
as set forth below;
b. revising the definition in S4 of ``Vehicle headlamp aiming
device'', to read as set forth below;
c. revising S7.3.2(a)(3); 7.3.3(a); S7.3.4; S7.3.5(a); S7.3.6(a);
the first sentence of S7.3.7(b); S7.3.7(d); S7.3.7(h)(1); the last
sentence of S7.3.8(b); S7.4(a)(1)(i); S7.4(a)(1)(ii); S7.4(a)(1)(iii);
S7.4(a)(2)(i); S7.4(a)(2)(ii); the first sentence of S7.4 (a)(3);
S7.5(d)(2)(i)(A)(1); S7.5(d)(2)(i)(A)(2), S7.5(d)(2)(ii)(A)(1),
S7.5(d)(2)(ii)(A)(2), S7.5(d)(3)(i)(A); S7.5(d)(3)(i)(B);
S7.5(d)(3)(ii)(A); S7.5(d)(3)(ii)(B); S7.5(e)(2)(i)(A);
S7.5(e)(2)(i)(B); S7.5(e)(2)(ii)(A); S7.5(e)(2)(ii)(B); the
[[Page 36342]]
first sentences of S7.5(e)(3)(i) and S7.5(e)(3)(ii); S7.6.2; S7.6.3;
and S7.8.1; S7.8.2; S7.8.2.2; and S7.8.5, to read as set forth below;
d. redesignating paragraph S7.8.5.2(c) as S7.8.5.2(d);
e. adding new S7.8.5.2(c) and S7.8.5.3 to read as set forth below;
f. revising the fourth sentence of S10 (a) and the third sentence
of S10(b) to read as set forth below;
g. adding new Figures 15B, 17B, 27A, and 28A, to read as set forth
below; and
h. revising Figure 26 to read as set forth below:
Sec. 571.108 Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment.
* * * * *
S4 Definitions.
* * * * *
Cutoff means a generally horizontal, visual/optical aiming cue in
the lower beam that marks a separation between areas of higher and
lower luminance.
* * * * *
Vehicle headlamp aiming device or VHAD means motor vehicle
equipment, installed either on a vehicle or headlamp, which is used for
determining the horizontal or vertical aim, or both the vertical and
horizontal aim of the headlamp.
Visually/optically aimable headlamp means a headlamp which is
designed to be visually/optically aimable in accordance with the
requirements of S7.8.5.3 of this standard.
S7.3.2 Type A headlighting system. * * *
(a) * * *
(3) In S4.5.2 and S5.1.6, the words ``Figure 28 or 28A of Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 are substituted for ``Table 3.''
* * * * *
S7.3.3 Type B headlighting system. * * *
(a) The requirements of S7.3.2(a) through (c), except that Figure
27 or Figure 27A is substituted for Table 3 in S7.3.2(a)(3).
* * * * *
S7.3.4 Type C headlighting system. A Type C headlighting system
consists of two Type 1C1 and two Type 2C1 headlamps and associated
hardware, which are designed to conform to the requirements of
S7.3.2(a) through (d), except that Figure 28 or 28A is substituted for
Table 3 in S7.3.2(a)(3).
S7.3.5 Type D headlighting system. (a) A Type D headlighting
system consists of two Type 2D1 headlamps and associated hardware,
which are designed to conform to the requirements of S7.3.2(a) through
(c), except that Figure 27 or 27A is substituted for Table 3 in
S7.3.2(a)(3).
* * * * *
S7.3.6 Type E headlighting system. (a) A Type E headlighting
system consists of two Type 2E1 headlamps and associated hardware,
which are designed to conform to the requirements of S7.3.2(a) through
(c), except that Figure 27 or 27A is substituted for Table 3 in
S7.3.2(a)(3).
* * * * *
S7.3.7 Type F headlighting system. * * *
* * * * *
(b) The photometric requirements of Figure 15A or 15B of this
standard. * * *
* * * * *
(d) When tested in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section,
the mounted assembly (either Type UF or Type LF headlamps, respective
mounting ring, aiming ring, and aim adjustment mechanism) shall be
designed to conform to the requirements of Figure 15A or 15B for upper
or lower beams respectively without reaim when any conforming Type UF
or LF headlamp is tested and replaced by another conforming headlamp of
the same Type.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) The assembly (consisting of the Type UF and LF headlamps,
mounting rings, the aiming/seating rings, and aim adjustment mechanism)
shall be designed to conform to the test points of Figure 15A or 15B.
* * * * *
S7.3.8 Type G headlighting system. * * *
* * * * *
(b) * * * In S4.5.2, the words ``either Figure 28 or 28A'' are
substituted for the words ``Table 3''.
* * * * *
S7.4 Integral beam headlighting systems. * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Figure 15A or 15B; or
(ii) Figure 15A or 15B, except that the upper beam test value at
2.5D-V and 2.5D-12R and 12L, shall apply to the lower beam headlamp and
not to the upper beam headlamp, and the upper beam test point value at
1.5D-9R and 9L shall be 1000; or
(iii) Figure 28 or 28A.
(2) * * *
(i) Figure 17 or 17B; or
(ii) Figure 27 or 27A.
(3) In a system in which there is more than one beam contributor
providing a lower beam, and/or more than one beam contributor providing
an upper beam, each beam contributor in the system shall be designed to
meet only the photometric performance requirements of Figure 15A or 15B
based upon the following mathematical expression: conforming test point
value = 2 (Figure 15A or 15B test point value)/total number of lower or
upper beam contributors for the vehicle, as appropriate. * * *
* * * * *
S7.5 Replaceable bulb headlighting systems. * * *
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(1) The lower beam requirements of Figure 27 or 27A or Figure 17A
or 17B if the light sources in the headlamp system are any combination
of dual filament replaceable light sources other than Type HB2; or
(2) The lower beam requirements of Figure 17A or 17B if the light
sources are Type HB2, or any dual filament replaceable light sources
that include Type HB2; or
(B) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(1) The upper beam requirements of Figure 27 or 27A, or Figure 17A
or 17B if the light sources in the headlamp system are any combination
of dual filament replaceable light sources that include Type HB2, or
(2) The upper beam requirements of Figure 17A or 17B if the light
sources are Type HB2, or any combination of replaceable light sources
that include Type HB2; or
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) The lower beam requirements of Figure 27 or 27A, or Figure 15A
or 15B if the light sources in the headlamp system are any combination
of dual filament light sources other than Type HB2; or
(B) The lower beam requirements of Figure 15A or 15B if the light
sources are Type HB2, or dual filament light sources other than Type
HB1 and Type HB5. * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) The upper beam requirements of Figure 27 or 27A or Figure 15A
or 15B if the light sources in the headlamp system are any combination
of dual filament light sources other than Type HB2; or
(B) The upper beam requirements of Figure 15A or 15B if the light
sources are Type HB2, or dual filament light
[[Page 36343]]
sources other than Type HB1 and Type HB5. * * *
(e) * * *
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) By the outboard light source (or the uppermost if arranged
vertically) designed to conform to the lower beam requirements of
Figure 17A or 17B; or
(B) By both light sources, designed to conform to the lower beam
requirements of Figure 17A or 17B.
(ii) * * *
(A) By the inboard light source (or the lower one if arranged
vertically) designed to conform to the upper beam requirements of
Figure 17A or 17B; or
(B) By both light sources, designed to conform to the upper beam
requirements of Figure 17A or 17B.
(3) * * *
(i) The lower beam shall be produced by the outboard lamp (or upper
one if arranged vertically), designed to conform to the lower beam
requirements of Figure 15A or 15 B. * * *
(ii) The upper beam shall be produced by the inboard lamp (or lower
one if arranged vertically), designed to conform to the upper beam
requirements of Figure 15A or 15B. * * *
* * * * *
S7.6.2 In a combination headlighting system consisting of two
headlamps, each headlamp shall be designed to conform to Figure 17A or
17B and shall be a combination of two different headlamps chosen from
the following types: a Type F headlamp, an integral beam headlamp, and
a replaceable bulb headlamp.
* * * * *
S7.6.3 In a combination headlighting system consisting of four
headlamps, each headlamp shall be designed to conform to Figure 15A or
15B, or if an integral beam headlamp in which there is more than one
beam contributor, designed to conform to Figure 15A or 15B in the
manner required by S7.4(a)(3) of this standard.
* * * * *
S7.8.1 (a) Each headlamp or beam contributor that is not visually/
optically aimable in accordance with S7.8.5.3 of this standard shall be
equipped with fiducial marks, aiming pads, or similar references of
sufficient detail and accuracy, for determination of an appropriate
vehicle plane to be used with the photometric procedures of SAE J1383
APR85 for correct alignment with the photometer axis when being tested
for photometric compliance, and to serve for the aiming reference when
the headlamp or beam contributor is installed on a motor vehicle. The
fiducial marks, aiming pads, or similar references are protrusions,
bubble vials, holes, indentations, ridges, scribed lines, or other
readily identifiable marks established and described by the vehicle or
headlamp manufacturer.
(b) Each motor vehicle manufactured on and after September 1 [of
the year following one year after publication of the final rule] shall
be equipped with headlamps or beam contributors which have a mark or
markings that are visible from the front of the headlamp to identify
the optical axis of the headlamp to assure proper horizontal and
vertical alignment of the aiming screen or optical aiming equipment.
The manufacturer is free to choose the design of the mark or markings.
The mark or markings may be on the interior or exterior of the lens or
indicated by a mark or central structure on the interior or exterior of
the headlamp.
(c) Each headlamp that is visually/optically aimable in accordance
with S7.8.5.3 of this standard shall be marked in accordance with
S7.8.5.3(f).
S7.8.2 Except as provided in this section, each headlamp shall be
installed on a motor vehicle with a mounting and aiming mechanism that
allows aim inspection and adjustment of both vertical and horizontal
aim, and is accessible for those purposes without removal of any
vehicle parts, except for protective covers removable without the use
of tools. A visually/optically aimable headlamp that has a lower beam
shall not have a horizontal adjustment mechanism unless such mechanism
meets the requirements of S7.8.5.2 of this standard.
* * * * *
S7.8.2.2 If the headlamp is aimed by moving the reflector relative
to the lens and headlamp housing, or vice versa, it shall:
(a) Allow movement of the headlamp system, when tested in the
laboratory, to be not less than the full range of pitch on the vehicle
on which the headlamp system is installed and for the horizontal aim
range limits of S7.8.4,
(b) Conform with the photometrics applicable to it with the lens at
any position relative to the reflector within the range limits as
specified in paragraph (a) of this section,
(c) Be exempted from the aim range limits for testing in a
laboratory as specified in S7.8.3, and
(d) Be exempted from S7.8.4 if it is visually/optically aimable and
has fixed horizontal aim.
* * * * *
S7.8.5 When activated in a steady-burning state, headlamps shall
not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent
cover or grill, in front of the lens. Headlamp wipers may be used in
front of the lens provided that the headlamp system is designed to
conform with all applicable photometric requirements with the wiper
stopped in any position in front of the lens. When a headlamp system is
installed on a motor vehicle, it shall be aimable with at least one of
the following:
(a) An externally applied aiming device, as specified in S7.8.5.1;
(b) An on-vehicle headlamp aiming device installed by the vehicle
or lamp manufacturer, as specified in S7.8.5.2; or
(c) By visual/optical means, as specified in S7.8.5.3.
* * * * *
S7.8.5.2(c) Each headlamp equipped with a VHAD that is manufactured
for use on motor vehicles manufactured on or after September 1 [of the
year following one year after publication of the final rule] shall be
manufactured with its calibration permanently fixed by its
manufacturer. Calibration in this case means the process of accurately
aligning the geometry of the VHAD devices with the beam pattern for the
purposes of compliance with the standard.
* * * * *
S7.8.5.3 Visual/optical aiming. Each visually/optically aimable
headlamp shall be designed to conform to the following requirements:
(a) Vertical aim, lower beam. Each lower beam headlamp shall have a
cutoff in the beam pattern. It may be either on the left side or the
right side of the optical axis, but once chosen for a particular
headlamp system's design, the side chosen for the cutoff shall not be
changed for any headlamps intended to be used as replacements for those
system's headlamps.
(1) Vertical position of cutoff. The headlamp shall be aimed
vertically so that the cutoff is on the left side, at 0.4 degree down
from the H-H line, or on the right side, at the H-H line.
(2) Vertical gradient. The gradient of the cutoff measured at
either 2.5 degrees L or 2.0 degrees R shall be not less than 0.13 based
on the procedure of paragraph (a)(5) of this section.
(3) Horizontal position of the cutoff. The width shall be not less
than two degrees, with not less than two degrees of its actual width
centered at either 2.5 degrees L, or 2.0 degrees R.
(4) Maximum inclination of cutoff. The vertical location of the
highest gradient at the ends of the minimum width shall be within
0.2 degree of the vertical location of the maximum
[[Page 36344]]
gradient measured at the appropriate vertical line (at either 2.5
degrees L for a left side cutoff, or 2.0 degrees R for a right side
cutoff.)
(5) Measuring the cutoff parameters. (i) The headlamp shall be
mounted on a fixture which simulates its actual design location on any
vehicle for which the headlamp is intended. The fixture, with the
headlamp installed shall be attached to the goniometer table in such a
way that the fixture alignment axes are coincident with the goniometer
axes. The headlamp shall be energized at the specified test voltage.
(ii) The headlamp beam pattern shall be aimed with the cutoff at
the H-H axis. There shall be no adjustment, shimming, or modification
of the horizontal axis of the headlamp or test fixture, unless the
headlamp is equipped with a VHAD. In this case the VHAD shall be
adjusted to zero.
(iii) A vertical scan of the beam pattern shall be conducted for a
headlamp with a left side gradient by aligning the goniometer on a
vertical line at 2.5 degrees L and scanning from 1.5 degrees U to 1.5
degrees D. For a headlamp with a right side gradient, a vertical scan
of the beam pattern shall be conducted by aligning the goniometer on a
vertical line at 2.0 degrees R and scanning from 1.5 degrees U to 1.5
degrees D.
(iv) Determine the maximum gradient within the range of the scan by
using the formula: G=log E()-log E(+0.1), where ``G''
is the gradient, ``E'' is illumination and ``'' is vertical
angular position. The maximum value of the gradient ``G'' determines
the vertical angular location of the cutoff. Perform vertical scans at
1.0 degree L&R of the measurement point of the maximum gradient to
determine the inclination.
(b) Horizontal aim, lower beam. There shall be no adjustment of
horizontal aim unless the headlamp is equipped with a horizontal VHAD.
If the headlamp has a VHAD, it shall be set at zero.
(c) Vertical aim, upper beam. (1) If the upper beam is combined in
a headlamp with a lower beam, the vertical aim of the upper beam shall
not be changed from the aim set using the procedures of S7.8.5.3 (a)
and (b) used for the lower beam.
(2) If the upper beam is not combined in a headlamp with a lower
beam, the vertical aim of the upper beam shall be adjusted so that the
maximum beam intensity is located on the H-H axis.
(d) Horizontal aim, upper beam. (1) If the upper beam is combined
in a headlamp with a lower beam, the horizontal aim of the upper beam
shall not be changed from the aim set using the procedures of S7.8.5.3
(a) and (b) used for the lower beam.
(2) If the upper beam is not combined in a headlamp with the lower
beam and has fixed horizontal aim or has a horizontal VHAD, then the
headlamp shall be mounted on a fixture which simulates its actual
design location on any vehicle for which the headlamp is intended. The
fixture, with the headlamp installed shall be attached to the
goniometer table in such a way that the fixture alignment axes are
coincident with the goniometer axes. The headlamp shall be energized at
12.80.20 mV. There shall be no adjustment, shimming, or
modification of the horizontal axis of the headlamp or test fixture,
unless the headlamp is equipped with a VHAD. In this case the VHAD
shall be adjusted to zero.
(3) If the upper beam is not combined in a headlamp with a lower
beam, and it does not have a VHAD, the horizontal aim of the upper beam
shall be adjusted so that the maximum beam intensity is located on the
V-V axis.
(e) Photometric requirements and measurements. (1) Instead of being
designed to conform to the photometric requirements of Figures 15A,
17A, 27 or 28, a visually/optically aimable headlamp shall be designed
to conform to the requirements of Figures 15B, 17B, 27A or 28A when
tested in accordance with paragraph (e)(2) of this section and SAE J575
DEC88, with the distance from the photometer to the headlamp no less
than 18.3 m.
(2) If the lower beam has a left side cutoff, reaim the headlamp
vertically to place the maximum gradient found in S7.8.5.3 at 0.4
degree below the H-H line. For a headlamp with a lower beam right side
cutoff, place the maximum gradient found in S7.8.5.3 at the H-H line.
For an upper beam, the headlamp would already be aimed at the end of
the procedure found in S7.8.5.3. A 0.25 degree reaim is permitted in
any direction at any test point.
(f) Marking. (1) Headlamp optical axis mark. There shall be a mark
or markings identifying the optical axis of the headlamp visible from
the front of the headlamp, to assure proper horizontal and vertical
alignment of the aiming screen or optical aiming equipment with the
headlamp being aimed. The manufacturer is free to choose the design of
the mark or markings. The mark or markings may be on the interior or
exterior of the lens or indicated by a mark or central structure on the
interior or exterior of the headlamp.
(2) Visual/optical aimability identification marks. (i) The lens of
a lower beam headlamp shall be marked ``VOL'' if the headlamp is
intended to be visually/optically aimed using the left side of the
lower beam pattern.
(ii) The lens of a lower beam headlamp shall be marked ``VOR'' if
the headlamp is intended to be visually/optically aimed using the right
side of the lower beam pattern.
(iii) The lens of each sealed beam or integral beam headlamp shall
be marked ``VOR'' if the headlamp is of a type that was manufactured
before [the effective date of the final rule] and if such headlamp type
has been redesigned since then to be visually/optically aimable.
(iv) The lens of a headlamp that is solely an upper beam headlamp
and intended to be visually/optically aimed using the upper beam shall
be marked ``VO''.
(v) Each letter used in marking according to this paragraph shall
be not less than 3 mm. high.
* * * * *
S10. Simultaneous aim photometry tests.
(a) Type F headlamp systems. * * * Photometry measurements of the
UF photometry unit shall be completed using the aiming plane so
established, and the procedures of section 4.1 and 4.1.4 Standard J1383
APR85, and Figure 15A or 15Ba. * * *
(b) Integral beam headlamp systems. * * * Photometric compliance of
the lower beam shall be determined with all lower beam contributors
illuminated and in accordance with sections 4.1 and 4.1.6 of SAE
Standard J1383 APR85, and Figure 15A or 15B. * * *
* * * * *
Figure 15B.--Photometric Test Point Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Candela Candela
Test points (degrees) maximum minimum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Beam
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2U-V.......................................... -- 1,500
1U-3L and 3R.................................. -- 5,000
H-V........................................... 70,000 40,000
H-3L and 3R................................... -- 15,000
H-6L and 6R................................... -- 5,000
H-9L and 9R................................... -- 3,000
H-12L and 12R................................. -- 1,500
1.5D-V........................................ -- 5,000
1.5D-9L and 9R................................ -- 2,000
2.5D-V........................................ -- 2,500
2.5D-12L and 12R.............................. -- 1,000
4D-V.......................................... 5,000 --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Beam
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10U-90U....................................... 125 --
4U-8L and 8R.................................. -- 64
2U-4L......................................... -- 135
1.5U-1R to 3R................................. -- 200
[[Page 36345]]
1.5U-1R to R.................................. 1,400 --
1U-1.5L to L.................................. 700 --
0.5U-1.5L to L................................ 1,000 --
0.5U-1R to 3R................................. 2,700 500
H-V........................................... 5,000 --
H-4L.......................................... -- 135
H-8L.......................................... -- 64
0.6D-1.3R..................................... -- 10,000
0.86D-V....................................... -- 4,500
0.86D-3.5L.................................... 12,000 1,800
1.5D-2R....................................... -- 15,000
2D-9L and 9R.................................. -- 1,250
2D-15L and 15R................................ -- 1,000
4D-V.......................................... 10,000 --
4D-4R......................................... 12,500 --
4D-20L and 20R................................ -- 300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 17B.--Photometric Test Point Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Candela Candela
Test Points (degrees) maximum minimum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Beam
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2U-V.......................................... -- 1,500
1U-3L and 3R.................................. -- 5,000
H-V........................................... 75,000 40,000
H-3L and 3R................................... -- 15,000
H-6L and 6R................................... -- 5,000
H-9L and 9R................................... -- 3,000
H-12L and 12R................................. -- 1,500
1.5D-V........................................ -- 5,000
1.5D-9L and 9R................................ -- 2,000
2.5D-V........................................ -- 2,500
2.5D-12L and 12R.............................. -- 1,000
4D-V.......................................... 12,000 --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Beam
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10U-90U....................................... 125 --
4U-8L and 8R.................................. -- 64
2U-4L......................................... -- 135
1.5U-1R to 3R................................. -- 200
1.5U-1R to R.................................. 1,400 --
1U-1.5L to L.................................. 700 --
0.5U-1.5L to L................................ 1,000 --
0.5U-1R to 3R................................. 2,700 500
H-4L.......................................... -- 135
H-8L.......................................... -- 64
0.6D-1.3R..................................... -- 10,000
0.86D-V....................................... -- 4,500
0.86D-3.5L.................................... 12,000 1,800
1.5D-2R....................................... -- 15,000
2D-9L and 9R.................................. -- 1,250
2D-15L and 15R................................ -- 1,000
4D-4R......................................... 12,500 --
4D-20L and 20R................................ -- 300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 26.--Table for Determining the Photometric Requirements of Replaceable Bulb Headlamp Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any dual filament type other than HB2 or any single filament type
HB2 used alone or with another dual used alone or with any other single
filament type other than HB2, filed or dual filament type, filed in
in Docket No. 93-11 Docket No. 93-11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four-Headlamp Systems................. Fig. 27 or 27A, Fig. 15 or 15B..... Fig. 15 or 15B.
Two-Headlamp Systems.................. Fig. 27 or 27A, Fig. 17 or 17B..... Fig. 17 or 17B.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 27A.--Photometric Test Point Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Candela Candela
Test points (degrees) maximum minimum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Beam
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2U-V.......................................... -- 1,000
1U-3L and 3R.................................. -- 2,000
H-V........................................... 75,000 20,000
H-3L and 3R................................... -- 10,000
H-6L and 6R................................... -- 3,250
H-9L and 9R................................... -- 1,500
H-12L and 12R................................. -- 750
1.5D-V........................................ -- 5,000
1.5D-9L and 9R................................ -- 1,500
2.5D-V........................................ -- 2,500
2.5D-12L and 12R.............................. -- 750
4D-V.......................................... 5,000 --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Beam
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10U-90U....................................... 125 --
4U-8L and 8R.................................. -- 64
2U-4L......................................... -- 135
1.5U-1R to 3R................................. -- 200
1.5U-1R to R.................................. 1,400 --
1U-1.5L to L.................................. 700 --
0.5U-1.5L to L................................ 1,000 --
0.5U-1R to 3R................................. 2,700 500
H-4L.......................................... -- 135
H-8L.......................................... -- 64
0.6D-1.3R..................................... -- 10,000
0.86D-V....................................... -- 4,500
0.86D-3.5L.................................... 12,000 1,800
1.5D-2R....................................... -- 15,000
2D-9L and 9R.................................. -- 1,250
2D-15L and 15R................................ -- 1,000
4D-4R......................................... 12,500 --
4D-20L and 20R................................ -- 300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 28A.--Photometric Test Point Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headlamp type 1A1, 1C1, and 1G1 2A1, 2C1, and 2G1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Candela Candela Candela Candela
Test points (degrees) maximum minimum maximum minimum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Beam
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2U-V........................................................ ........... 750 ........... 750
1U-3L and 3R................................................ ........... 3,000 ........... 2,000
H-V......................................................... 60,000 18,000 15,000 7,000
H-3L and 3R................................................. ........... 12,000 ........... 3,000
H-6L and 6R................................................. ........... 3,000 ........... 2,000
[[Page 36346]]
H-9L and 9R................................................. ........... 2,000 ........... 1,000
H-12L and 12R............................................... ........... 750 ........... 750
1.5D-V...................................................... ........... 3,000 ........... 2,000
1.5D-9L and 9R.............................................. ........... 1,250 ........... 750
2.5D-V...................................................... ........... 1,500 ........... 1,000
2.5D-12L and 12R............................................ ........... 600 ........... 400
4D-V........................................................ 5,000 ........... 2,500 ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headlamp type 2A1, 2C1, and 2G1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Candela Candela
Test points (degrees) maximum minimum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Beam
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10U-90U....................................... 125 ...........
4U-8L and 8R.................................. ........... 64
2U-4L......................................... ........... 135
1.5U-1R to 3R................................. ........... 200
1.5U-1R to R.................................. 1,400 ...........
1U-1.5L to L.................................. 700 ...........
0.5U-1.5L to L................................ 1,000 ...........
0.5U-1R to 3R................................. 2,700 500
H-4L.......................................... ........... 135
H-8L.......................................... ........... 64
0.6D-1.3R..................................... ........... 10,000
0.86D-V....................................... ........... 4,500
0.86D-3.5L.................................... 12,000 1,800
1.5D-2R....................................... ........... 15,000
2D-9L and 9R.................................. ........... 1,250
2D-15L and 15R................................ ........... 1,000
4D-4R......................................... 12,500 ...........
4D-20L and 20R................................ ........... 300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issued on July 2, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-17299 Filed 7-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17164 Proposed Establishment of Temporary Restricted Area R-3203D, Orchard, ID
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36317-36318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17164]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ANM-3]
Proposed Establishment of Temporary Restricted Area R-3203D,
Orchard, ID
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action withdraws the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
published in the Federal Register on April 22, 1996. The NPRM proposed
to establish a temporary restricted area at Orchard, ID, to support the
Idaho National Guard's increased training requirements. The FAA has
determined that withdrawal of the proposal is warranted because
insufficient time exists to complete the required rulemaking action for
the additional restricted airspace prior to the exercise start date.
DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn July 10, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken McElroy, Airspace and Rules
Division, ATA-400, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone: (202) 267-3075.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 22, 1996, an NPRM was published in
the Federal Register to amend Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations part 73 (14 CFR part 73) to establish a temporary
restricted area at Orchard, ID, to support the Idaho National Guard's
increased training requirements (61 FR 17608). No comments were
received on the proposal.
[[Page 36318]]
The FAA has decided to withdraw the proposal at this time because
insufficient time exists to complete the required rulemaking action for
the additional restricted airspace prior to the exercise start date.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Withdrawal
In consideration of the foregoing, the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, Airspace Docket No. 96-ANM-3, as published in the Federal
Register on April 22, 1996 (61 FR 17608), is hereby withdrawn.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 25, 1996.
Nancy B. Kalinowski,
Acting Program Director for Air Traffic Airspace Management.
[FR Doc. 96-17164 Filed 7-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.