issue-1996-05-22•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-05-22
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-05-22
issue-1996-05-22Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-05-22Proposed 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. 96-12839 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace, Colstrip, Montana
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25600-25601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12839]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ANM-22]
Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace, Colstrip, Montana
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would establish the Colstrip, Montana,
Class E airspace to accommodate a new Global Positioning System (GPS)
standard instrument approach procedure (SIAP) to the Colstrip Airport.
The area would be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 8, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager,
Operations Branch, ANM-530, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket No.
95-ANM-22, 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 Frala, ANM-532.4, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket No. 95-
ANM-22, 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. 95-
ANM-22.'' 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 docked.
Availability 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.
[[Page 25601]]
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
Colstrip, Montana, to accommodate a new GPS SIAP to the Colstrip
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
would only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace 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
* * * * *
ANM MT E5 Colstrip, MT
Colstrip Airport, MT
(Lat. 45 deg.51'10'' N, long. 106 deg.42'34'' W)
Billings Logan International Airport, MT
(Lat. 45 deg.48'30'' N, long. 108 deg.32'38'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 13.5-mile radius of Colstrip Airport; that airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded on the
north by the south edge of V-2, on the east by the west edge of V-
254, on the south along lat. 45 deg.30'00'' N, and on the west by
the 60-mile arc centered on Billings Logan International Airport;
excluding the Forsyth and Miles City, MT Class airspace areas.
* * * * *
Issued in Seattle, Washington, on May 8, 1996.
Richard E. Prang,
Acting Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Division, Northwest Mountain
Region.
[FR Doc. 96-12839 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12816 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Gray Wolf in Arizona and New Mexico
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25618-25619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12816]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican
Gray Wolf in Arizona and New Mexico
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of public meetings and hearings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces its
intention to hold public open house meetings and hearings on the
Proposed Rule for the Proposed Establishment of a Nonessential
Experimental Population of the Mexican Gray Wolf in Arizona and New
Mexico. The meetings and hearings will be held in El Paso, Texas;
Alamogordo and Silver City, New Mexico; and Springerville, Arizona.
DATES: The meetings/hearings will be held in El Paso, Texas, on June 10
from 6:00 to 10:00 p.m.; in Alamogordo, New Mexico, on June 11 from
6:00 to 10:00 p.m.; in Silver City, New Mexico, on June 13 from 6:00 to
10:00 p.m.; and in Springerville, Arizona, on June 15 from 2:00 to 6:00
p.m. Times and places of these meetings will also be announced in the
local media and in mailings to the interested public. The comment
period on the Proposed Rule closes on July 1, 1996, and comments must
be
[[Page 25619]]
postmarked by the closing date to be considered.
ADDRESSES: The public meeting/hearing location in El Paso, Texas, is
the Ysleta Unified School District, Christo Rey and Chamizal Rooms, at
9600 Sims Drive; the location in Alamogordo, New Mexico, is the Civic
Center Conference Room and Auditorium at 800 First Street; the location
in Silver City, New Mexico, is the Lighthall Classroom 202 and
Lighthall Auditorium on the Western New Mexico University campus; and
the location in Springerville, Arizona, is the Round Valley Unified
School District Auditorium at 450 South Butler Street. Questions and
comments on the Proposed Rule should be sent to David R. Parsons,
Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O.
Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-1306. Copies of the Proposed
Rule, a fact sheet that summarizes the rule, the draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for Proposed Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf
to its Historic Range in the Southwestern United States, and the draft
EIS summary can be obtained at this address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David R. Parsons (see ADDRESSES
section), or phone at (505) 248-6920; or facsimile at (505)248-6922.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the June 27, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR 33224-33225) the
Service announced the availability of a draft EIS for a proposal to
reintroduce Mexican wolves to portions of their historic range in the
southwestern United States. Alternatives A (the Proposed Action) and B
of the draft EIS propose the reintroduction of Mexican wolves
classified as a nonessential experimental population as allowed under
section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
In the May 1, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR 19237-19248), the
Service issued the Proposed Rule for establishing a nonessential
experimental population of the Mexican gray wolf in Arizona and New
Mexico. A nearly identical Draft Proposed Mexican Wolf Experimental
Population Rule was included as Appendix C in the draft EIS. The
Proposed Rule is an integral part of Alternatives A and B in the draft
EIS, both of which propose the establishment of a nonessential
experimental population of Mexican wolves. It provides needed
management flexibility for addressing potential wolf- human conflicts
associated with wolf reintroduction, such as livestock depredation by
wolves. This Proposed Rule differs from Appendix C of the draft EIS
only by the inclusions of an updated status of the National
Environmental Policy Act process and some ``plain language'' revisions
to make the rule more readable. No substantive provisions of Appendix C
of the draft EIS have changed.
If you submitted a written comment or formal oral testimony during
the draft EIS comment period on the Draft Proposed Rule, as set forth
in Appendix C, or as summarized in the draft EIS text or the draft EIS
Summary, it is not necessary to resubmit that comment for it to be
considered in this comment period on the Proposed Rule.
Four public open house meetings/hearings will be held (see DATES
and ADDRESSES sections). Agency representatives will be available at
these meetings to provide information about the Proposed Rule; consult
with you regarding provisions of the rule; answer your questions; and
receive your written comments. Carter Niemeyer, the Animal Damage
Control Wolf Specialist for the northern Rocky Mountain region, will
give a formal presentation on wolf-livestock interactions following
wolf reestablishment in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. We will conclude
with a formal public hearing where oral testimony on the Proposed Rule
will be recorded. Anyone wishing to make an oral statement for the
record is encouraged to provide a copy of his or her statement at the
start of the hearing. If attendance at the hearing is large, the time
allotted for oral statements may be limited. Written comments and oral
testimony receive equal consideration.
The Proposed Rule will be revised after the close of the comment
period and, depending on future decisions with respect to Mexican wolf
recovery, may then be issued as a Final Rule. The Service's goal is
that the Final Rule, if issued, would, to the maximum extent
practicable, represent an agreement between the Service and the
agencies, local governments, tribes, private landowners, and other
potentially affected parties regarding how to manage reintroduced
Mexican wolves with minimal adverse impacts while promoting their
conservation and recovery. This goal is consistent with ESA regulations
on experimental populations (50 CFR sec. 17.81(d)).
Comments on the Proposed Rule must be received or postmarked by
July 1, 1996, and sent to the Service office in the ADDRESSES section.
Dated: May 16, 1996.
Nancy M. Kaufman,
Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 96-12816 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12790 Fellowship Program Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25612-25618]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12790]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MADISON MEMORIAL FELLOWSHIP FOUNDATION
45 CFR Part 2400
Fellowship Program Requirements
AGENCY: James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The following are proposed revised regulations governing the
annual competition for James Madison Fellowships and the obligations of
James Madison Fellows. These regulation would update and replace
several aspects of the the Foundation's existing regulations as
implemented by the James Madison Memorial Fellowship Act of 1986. These
revised regulations would govern the qualifications and applications of
candidates for fellowships; the selection of Fellows by the Foundation;
the graduate programs Fellows must pursue; the terms and conditions
attached to awards; the Foundation's annual Summer Institute on the
Constitution; and related requirements and expectations regarding
fellowships.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 22, 1996.
ADDRESSES: James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation, 2000 K Street,
NW, Suite 303, Washington, DC 20006-1809.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lewis F. Larsen, (202) 653-8700.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reason for the proposed changes to the
Foundation's regulations comes as a result of the Foundation's desire
to clarify several of the rules and regulations which James Madison
Fellows must observe when accepting their fellowships. Although many of
the changes are minor insertions of words and punctuation, this
document specifically expands the definition section to include further
detailed definitions on Credit Hour Equivalent, Incomplete, Repayment,
Satisfactory Progress, Stipend, Teaching Obligation, Termination and
Withdrawal. The Foundation now encourages James Madison Fellows to
choose a graduate program which does not include the writing of a
thesis. Graduate programs for which Fellows may apply have been
broadened to included political science. Finally, a section entitled
``Teaching Obligation'' was added to further clarify the obligation to
teach, required by the Foundation once each fellow has earned a
master's degree.
List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 2400
Education, Fellowships.
Dated: May 16, 1996.
Paul A. Yost, Jr.,
President.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble and under authority of 20
U.S.C. 4501 et seq., chapter XXIV, title 45 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended by revising part 2400 to read as follows:
Chapter XXIV--James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation
PART 2400--FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
Subpart A--General
2400.1 Purposes.
2400.2 Annual competition.
2400.3 Eligibility.
2400.4 Definitions.
Subpart B--Application
2400.10 Application.
2400.11 Faculty representatives.
Subpart C--Application Process
2400.20 Preparation of application.
2400.21 Contents of application.
2400.22 Application deadline.
[[Page 25613]]
Subpart D--Selection of Fellows
2400.30 Selection criteria.
2400.31 Selection process.
Subpart E--Graduate Study
2400.40 Institutions of graduate study.
2400.41 Degree programs.
2400.42 Approval of Plan of Study.
2400.43 Required courses of graduate study.
2400.44 Commencement of graduate study.
2400.45 Special consideration: Junior Fellows' Plan of Study.
2400.46 Special consideration: second master's degrees.
2400.47 Summer Institute's relationship to fellowship.
2400.48 Fellows' participation in the Summer Institute.
2400.49 Contents of the Summer Institute.
2400.50 Allowances and Summer Institute costs.
2400.51 Summer Institute accreditation.
Subpart F--Fellowship Stipend
2400.52 Amount of stipend.
2400.53 Duration of stipend.
2400.54 Use of stipend.
2400.55 Certification for stipend.
2400.56 Payment of stipend.
2400.57 Termination of stipend.
2400.58 Repayment of stipend.
Subpart G--Special Conditions
2400.59 Other awards.
2400.60 Renewal of award.
2400.61 Postponement of award.
2400.62 Evidence of master's degree.
2400.63 Excluded graduate study.
2400.64 Alterations to Plan of Study.
2400.65 Teaching obligation.
2400.66 Completion of fellowship.
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 4501 et seq.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 2400.1 Purposes.
(a) The purposes of the James Madison Memorial Fellowship Program
are to:
(1) Provide incentives for master's degree level graduate study of
the history, principles, and development of the United States
Constitution by outstanding in-service teachers of American history,
American government, social studies, and political science in grades 7-
12 and by outstanding college graduates who plan to become teachers of
the same subjects; and
(2) Strengthen teaching in the nation's secondary schools about the
principles, framing, ratification, and subsequent history of the United
States Constitution.
(b) The Foundation may from time to time operate its own programs
and undertake other closely-related activities to fulfill these goals.
Sec. 2400.2 Annual competition.
To achieve its principal purposes, the Foundation holds an annual
national competition to select teachers in grades 7-12, college
seniors, and college graduates to be James Madison Fellows.
Sec. 2400.3 Eligibility.
Individuals eligible to apply for and hold James Madison
Fellowships are United States citizens, United States nationals, or
permanent residents of the Northern Mariana Islands who are:
(a) Teachers of American history, American government, social
studies, or political science in grades 7-12 who:
(1) Are teaching full time during the year in which they apply for
a fellowship;
(2) Are under contract, or can provide evidence of being under
prospective contract, to teach full time as teachers of American
history, American government, social studies, or political science in
grades 7-12;
(3) Have demonstrated records of willingness to devote themselves
to civic responsibilities and to professional and collegial activities
within their schools and school districts;
(4) Are highly recommended by their department heads, school heads,
school district superintendents, or other supervisors;
(5) Qualify for admission with graduate standing at accredited
universities of their choice that offer master's degree programs
allowing at least 12 semester hours or their equivalent of study of the
origins, principles, and development of the Constitution of the United
States and of its comparison with the constitutions of other forms of
government;
(6) Are able to complete their proposed courses of graduate study
within five calendar years from the commencement of study under their
fellowships, normally through part-time study during summers or in
evening or weekend programs;
(7) Agree to attend the Foundation's four-week Summer Institute on
the Constitution, normally during the summer following the commencement
of study under their fellowships; and
(8) Sign agreements that, after completing the education for which
the fellowship is awarded, they will teach American history, American
government, social studies, or political science full time in secondary
schools for a period of not less than one year for each full academic
year of study for which assistance was received, preferably in the
state listed as their legal residence at the time of their fellowship
award. For the purposes of this provision, a full academic year of
study is the number of credit hours determined by each university at
which Fellows are studying as constituting a full year of study at that
university. Fellows' teaching obligations will be figured at full
academic years of study; and when Fellows have studies for partial
academic years, those years will be rounded upward to the nearest one-
half year to determine Fellows' total teaching obligations.
(b) Those who aspire to become full-time teachers of American
history, American government, social studies, or political science in
grades 7-12 who:
(1) Are matriculated college seniors pursuing their baccalaureate
degrees full time and will receive those degrees no later than August
31st of the year of the fellowship competition in which they apply or
prior recipients of baccalaureate degrees;
(2) Plan to begin graduate study on a full-time basis;
(3) Have demonstrated records of willingness to devote themselves
to civic responsibilities;
(4) Are highly recommended by faculty members, deans, or other
persons familiar with their potential for graduate study of American
history and government and with their serious intention to enter the
teaching profession as secondary school teachers of American history,
American government, social studies, or political science in grades 7-
12;
(5) Qualify for admission with graduate standing at accredited
universities of their choice that offer master's degree programs that
allow at least 12 semester hours or their equivalent of study of the
origins, principles, and development of the Constitution of the United
States and of its comparison with the constitutions and history of
other forms of government;
(6) Are able to complete their proposed courses of graduate study
in no more than two calendar years from the commencement of study under
their fellowships, normally through full-time study;
(7) Agree to attend the Foundation's four-week Summer Institute on
the Constitution, normally during the summer following the commencement
of study under their fellowships; and
(8) Sign an agreement that, after completing the education for
which the fellowship is awarded, they will teach American history,
American government, social studies, or political science full time in
secondary schools for a period of not less than one year for each full
academic year of study for which assistance was received, preferably in
the state listed as their legal residence at the time of their
fellowship award. For the purposes of this provision, a full academic
year of
[[Page 25614]]
study is the number of credit hours determined by each university at
which Fellows are studying as constituting a full year of study at that
university. Fellows' teaching obligations will be figured at full
academic years of study; and when Fellows have studies for partial
academic years, those years will be rounded upward to the nearest one-
half year to determine Fellows' total teaching obligations.
Sec. 2400.4 Definitions.
As used in this part:
Academic year means the period of time in which a full-time student
would normally complete two semesters, two trimesters, three quarters,
or their equivalent of study.
Act means the James Madison Memorial Fellowship Act.
College means an institution of higher education offering only a
baccalaureate degree or the undergraduate division of a university in
which a student is pursuing a baccalaureate degree.
Credit hour equivalent means the number of graduate credit hours
obtained in credits, courses or units during a quarter, a trimester, or
a semester which are needed to equal a specific number of semester
graduate credit hours.
Fee means a typical and usually non-refundable charge levied by an
institution of higher education for a service, privilege, or use of
property which is required for a Fellow's enrollment and registration.
Fellow means a recipient of a fellowship from the Foundation.
Fellowship means an award, called a James Madison Fellowship, made
to a person by the Foundation for graduate study.
Foundation means the James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation.
Full-time study means study for an enrolled student who is carrying
a full-time academic workload as determined by the institution under a
standard applicable to all students enrolled in a particular
educational program.
Graduate study means the courses of study beyond the baccalaureate
level, which are offered as part of a university's master's degree
program and which lead to a master's degree.
Incomplete means a course which the Foundation has paid for but the
Fellow has received an incomplete grade or the Fellow has not received
graduate credit for the course.
Institution of higher education has the meaning given in section
1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a)).
Junior Fellowship means a James Madison Fellowship granted either
to a college senior or to a college graduate who has received a
baccalaureate degree and who seeks to become a secondary school teacher
of American history, American government, social studies, or political
science for full-time graduate study toward a master's degree whose
course of study emphasizes the framing, principles, history, and
interpretation of the United States Constitution.
Master's degree means the first pre-doctoral graduate degree
offered by a university beyond the baccalaureate degree, for which the
baccalaureate degree is a prerequisite.
Matriculated means formally enrolled in a master's degree program
in a university.
Repayment means if the fellowship is relinquished by the fellow or
is terminated by the Foundation prior to the completion of the Fellow's
degree, and/or the Fellow fails to fulfill the teaching obligation
after the graduate degree is awarded, the Fellow must repay to the
Foundation all Fellowship costs received plus interest at a rate of 6%
per annum and, if applicable, reasonable collection fees.
Resident means a person who has legal residence in the state,
recognized under state law. If a question arises concerning a Fellow's
state of residence, the Foundation determines, for the purposes of this
program, of which state the person is a resident, taking into account
the Fellow's place of registration to vote, his or her parent's place
of residence, and the Fellow's eligibility for in-state tuition rates
at public institutions of higher education.
Satisfactory progress for a Junior Fellow means the completion of
the number of required courses normally expected of full-time master's
degree candidates at the university that the Fellow attends, with
grades acceptable to that university, in not more than two calendar
years from the commencement of that study. Satisfactory progress for a
Senior Fellow means the completion each year of a specific number of
required courses in the Fellow's master's degree program, as agreed
upon each year with the Foundation and outlined on the Plan of Study
form, with grades acceptable to the Fellow's university, in not more
than five calendar years from the commencement of that study.
Secondary school means grades 7 through 12.
Senior means a student at the academic level recognized by an
institution of higher education as being the last year of study before
receiving the baccalaureate degree.
Senior Fellowship means a James Madison Fellowship granted to a
secondary school teacher of American history, American government,
social studies, or political science for part-time graduate study
toward a master's degree whose course of study emphasizes the framing,
principles, history, and interpretation of the United States
Constitution.
State means each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and, considered as a single entity, Guam,
the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, and, until adoption of its Compact of
Free Association, the Republic of Palau.
Stipend means the amount paid by the Foundation to a Fellow or on
his or her behalf to pay the allowable costs of graduate study which
have been approved under the fellowship.
Teaching obligation means that a Fellow, upon receiving a master's
degree, must teach American history, American government, social
studies, or political science on a full-time basis to students in
secondary school for a period of not less than one year for each year
for which financial assistance was received.
Term means the period--semester, trimester, or quarter--used by an
institution of higher education to divide its academic year.
Termination means the non-voluntary ending of a fellowship by the
Foundation when the Fellow has not complied with the rules and
regulations of the fellowship or has not made satisfactory progress in
his or her program of study.
University means an institution of higher education that offers
post-baccalaureate degrees.
Withdrawal means the voluntary relinquishment or surrender of a
Fellowship by the Fellow.
Subpart B--Application
Sec. 2400.10 Application.
Eligible applicants for fellowships must apply directly to the
Foundation.
Sec. 2400.11 Faculty representatives.
Each college and university that chooses to do so may annually
appoint or reappoint a faculty representative who will be asked to
identify and recruit fellowship applicants on campus, publicize the
annual competition on campus, and otherwise assist eligible candidates
in preparation for applying. In order to elicit the appointment of
faculty representatives, the Foundation will each year request the head
of each college and university campus to appoint or reappoint a
[[Page 25615]]
faculty representative and to provide the Foundation with the name,
business address, and business telephone number of a member of its
faculty representative on forms provided for that purpose.
Subpart C--Application Process
Sec. 2400.20 Preparation of application.
Applications, on forms mailed directly by the Foundation to those
who request applications, must be completed by all fellowship
candidates in order that they be considered for an award.
Sec. 2400.21 Contents of application.
Applications must include for
(a) Senior Fellowships:
(1) Supporting information which affirms an applicant's wish to be
considered for a fellowship; provides information about his or her
background, interests, goals, and the school in which he or she
teaches; and includes a statement about the applicant's educational
plans and specifies how those plans will enhance his or her career as a
secondary school teacher of American history, American government,
social studies, or political science;
(2) An essay of up to 600 words that explains the importance of the
study of the Constitution to:
(i) Young students;
(ii) The applicant's career aspirations and his or her
contributions to public service; and
(iii) Citizenship generally in a constitutional republic;
(3) The applicant's proposed course of graduate study, including
the name of the degree to be sought, the required courses to be taken,
as well as information about the specific degree sought;
(4) Three evaluations, one from an immediate supervisor, that
attest to the applicant's strengths and abilities as a teacher in
grades 7-12; and
(5) A copy of his or her academic transcript.
(b) Junior Fellowships:
(1) Supporting information which affirms an applicant's wish to be
considered for a fellowship; provides information about the applicant's
background, interests, goals, and the college which he or she attends
or attended; and includes a statement about the applicant's educational
plans and specifies how those plans will lead to a career as a teacher
of American history, American government, social studies, or political
science in grades 7-12;
(2) An essay of up to 600 words that explains the importance of the
study of the Constitution to:
(i) Young students;
(ii) The applicant's career aspirations and his or her contribution
to public service; and
(iii) Citizenship generally in a constitutional republic;
(3) Applicant's proposed course of graduate study, including the
name of the degree sought, the name of the required courses to be
taken, and information about the specific degree sought;
(4) Three evaluations that attest to the applicant's academic
achievements and to his or her potential to become an outstanding
secondary school teacher; and
(5) A copy of his or her academic transcript.
Sec. 2400.22 Application deadline.
Completed applications must be received by the Foundation no later
than March 1st of each year preceding the start of the academic year
for which candidates are applying.
Subpart D--Selection of Fellows
Sec. 2400.30 Selection criteria.
Applicants will be evaluated, on the basis of materials in their
applications, as follows:
(a) Demonstrated commitment to teaching American history, American
government, social studies, or political science at the secondary
school level;
(b) Demonstrated intention to pursue a program of graduate study
that emphasizes the Constitution and to offer classroom instruction in
that subject;
(c) Demonstrated record of willingness to devote themselves to
civic responsibility;
(d) Outstanding performance or potential of performance as
classroom teachers;
(e) Academic achievements and demonstrated capacity for graduate
study; and
(f) Proposed courses of graduate study, especially the nature and
extent of their subject matter components, and their relationship to
the enhancement of applicants' teaching and professional activities.
Sec. 2400.31 Selection process.
(a) An independent Fellow Selection Committee will evaluate all
valid applications and recommend to the Foundation the most outstanding
applicants from each state for James Madison Fellowships.
(b) From among candidates recommended for fellowships by the Fellow
Selection Committee, the Foundation will name James Madison Fellows.
The selection procedure will assure that at least one James Madison
Fellow, junior or senior, is selected from each state in which there
are at least two legally resident applicants who meet the eligibility
requirements set forth in Sec. 2400.3 and are judged favorably against
the selection criteria in Sec. 2400.30.
(c) The Foundation may name, from among those applicants
recommended by the Fellow Selection Committee, an alternate or
alternates for each fellowship. An alternate will receive a fellowship
if the person named as a James Madison Fellow declines the award or is
not able to pursue graduate study as contemplated at the time the
fellowship was accepted. An alternate may be named to replace a Fellow
who declines or relinquishes an award until, but no later than, March
1st following the competition in which the alternate has been selected.
(d) Funds permitting, the Foundation may also select, from among
those recommended by the Fellow Selection Committee, Fellows at large.
Subpart E--Graduate Study
Sec. 2400.40 Institutions of graduate study.
Fellowship recipients may attend any accredited university in the
United States with a master's degree program offering courses or
training that emphasize the origins, principles, and development of the
Constitution of the United States and its comparison with the
constitutions and history of other forms of government.
Sec. 2400.41 Degree programs.
(a) Fellows may pursue a master's degree in history or political
science (including government or politics), the degree of Master of
Arts in Teaching in history or political science (including government
or politics), or a related master's degree in education that permits a
concentration in American history, American government, social studies,
or political science. Graduate degrees under which study is excluded
from fellowship support are indicated in Sec. 2400.63.
(b) A master's degree pursued under a James Madison Fellowship may
entail either one or two years or their equivalent of study, according
to the requirements of the university at which a Fellow is enrolled.
Sec. 2400.42 Approval of Plan of Study.
The Foundation must approve each Fellow's Plan of Study. To be
approved, the plan must:
(a) On a part-time or full-time basis lead to a master's degree in
history or political science, the degree of Master of
[[Page 25616]]
Arts in Teaching in history or political science, or a related master's
degree in education that permits a concentration in American history,
American government, social studies, or political science;
(b) Include courses, graduate seminars, or opportunities for
independent study in topics directly related to the framing and history
of the constitution of the United States;
(c) Be pursued at a university that assures a willingness to accept
up to 6 semester hours of accredited transfer credits from another
graduate institution for a Fellow's satisfactory completion of the
Foundation's Summer Institute on the Constitution. For the Foundation's
purposes, these 6 semester hours may be included in the required
minimum of 12 semester hours or their equivalent of study of the United
States Constitution; and
(d) Be pursued at a university that encourages the Fellow to
enhance his or her capacities as a teacher of American history,
American government, social studies, or political science and to
continue his or her career as a secondary school teacher. The
Foundation reserves the right to refuse to approve a Fellow's Plan of
Study at a university that will not accept on transfer the 6 credits
for the Institute.
Sec. 2400.43 Required courses of graduate study.
(a) To be acceptable to the Foundation, those courses related to
the Constitution referred to in Sec. 2400.43(b) must amount to at least
12 semester or 18 quarter hours or their credit hour equivalent of
study of topics directly related to the United States Constitution.
More than 12 semester hours or their credit hour equivalent of such
study is strongly encouraged.
(b) The courses that fulfil the required minimum of 12 semester
hours or their credit hour equivalent of study of the United States
Constitution must cover one or more of the following subject areas:
(1) The history of colonial America leading up to the framing of
the Constitution;
(2) The Constitution itself, its framing, the history and
principles upon which it is based, its ratification, the Federalist
Papers, Anti-Federalist writings, and the Bill of Rights;
(3) The historical development of political theory, constitutional
law, and civil liberties as related to the Constitution;
(4) Interpretations of the Constitution by the Supreme Court and
other branches of the federal government;
(5) Debates about the Constitution in other forums and about the
effects of constitutional norms and decisions upon American society and
culture; and
(6) Any other subject clearly related to the framing, history, and
principles of the Constitution.
( c ) If a master's degree program in which a Fellow is enrolled
requires a master's thesis in place of a course or courses, the Fellow
will have the option of writing the thesis based on the degree
requirements. The preparation of a master's thesis should not add
additional required credits to the minimum number of credits required
for the master's degree. If a Fellow must write a thesis, the topic of
the thesis must relate to subjects concerning the framing, principles,
or history of the United States Constitution. If the Fellow can choose
between two degree tracks, a thesis track or a non-thesis track, the
Foundation strongly encourages the non-thesis track.
Sec. 2400.44 Commencement of graduate study.
(a) Fellows may commence study under their fellowships as early as
the summer following the announcement of their award. Fellows are
normally expected to commence study under their fellowships in the fall
term of the academic year following the date on which their award is
announced. However, as indicated in Sec. 2400.61, they may seek to
postpone the commencement of fellowship study under extenuating
circumstances.
(b) In determining the two- and five-year fellowship periods of
Junior and Senior Fellows respectively, the Foundation will consider
the commencement of the fellowship period to be the date on which each
Fellow commences study under a fellowship.
Sec. 2400.45 Special consideration: Junior Fellows' Plan of Study.
Applicants for Junior Fellowships who seek or hold baccalaureate
degrees in education are strongly encouraged to pursue master's degrees
in history or political science. Those applicants who hold
undergraduate degrees in history, political science, government, or any
other subjects may take some teaching methods and related courses,
although the Foundation will not pay for them unless they are required
for the degree for which the Fellow is matriculated. The Foundation
will review each proposed Plan of Study for an appropriate balance of
subject matter and other courses based on the Fellow's goals,
background, and degree requirements.
Sec. 2400.46 Special consideration: second master's degree.
The Foundation may award Senior Fellowships to applicants who are
seeking their second master's degrees providing that the applicants'
first master's degree was obtained at least five years prior to the
year in which the applicants would normally commence study under a
fellowship. In evaluating applications from individuals intending to
pursue a second master's degree, the Fellow Selection Committee will
favor those applicants who are planning to become American history,
American government, social studies, or political science teachers
after having taught another subject and applicants whose initial
master's degree was in a subject different from that sought under the
second master's degree.
Sec. 2400.47 Summer Institute's relationship to fellowship.
Each year, the Foundation offers, normally during July, a four-week
graduate-level Institute on the principles, framing, ratification, and
implementation of the United States Constitution at an accredited
university in the Washington, DC area. The Institute is an integral
part of each fellowship.
Sec. 2400.48 Fellows' participation in the Summer Institute.
Each Fellow is required as part of his or her fellowship to attend
the Institute, normally during the summer following the Fellow's
commencement of graduate study under a fellowship.
Sec. 2400.49 Contents of the Summer Institute.
The principal element of the Institute is a graduate history
course, ``Foundations of American Constitutionalism.'' Other components
of the Institute include study visits to sites associated with the
lives and careers of members of the founding generation.
Sec. 2400.50 Allowances and Summer Institute costs.
For their participation in the Institute, Fellows are paid an
allowance to help offset income foregone by their required attendance.
The Foundation also funds the costs of the Institute and Fellows'
round-trip transportation to and from the Institute site. The costs of
tuition, required fees, books, room, and board entailed by the
Institute will be paid for by the Foundation directly but may be offset
against fellowship award limits if the credits earned for the Institute
are included within the Fellows' degree requirements.
[[Page 25617]]
Sec. 2400.51 Summer Institute accreditation.
The Institute is accredited for six graduate semester credits by
the university at which it is held. It is expected that the
universities at which Fellows are pursuing their graduate study will,
upon Fellows' satisfactory completion of the Institute, accept these
credits or their credit-hour equivalent upon transfer from the
university at which the Institute is held in fulfillment of the minimum
number of credits required for Fellows' graduate degrees. Satisfactory
completion of the Institute will fulfill 6 of the Foundation's 12
semester credits required in graduate study of the history and
development of the Constitution. Fellows, with the Foundation's
assistance, are strongly encouraged to make good faith efforts to have
their universities incorporate the Institute into their Plan of Study
and accept the 6 Institute credits toward the minimum number of credits
required for their master's degrees.
Subpart F--Fellowship Stipend
Sec. 2400.52 Amount of stipend.
Junior and Senior Fellowships carry a stipend of up to a maximum of
$24,000 pro-rated over the period of Fellows' graduate study. In no
case shall the stipend for a fellowship exceed $12,000 per academic
year. Within this limit, stipends will be pro-rated over the period of
Fellows' graduate study as follows: a maximum of $6,000 per academic
semester or trimester of full-time study, and a maximum of $4,000 per
academic quarter of full-time study. Stipends for part-time study will
be pro rata shares of those allowable for full-time study.
Sec. 2400.53 Duration of stipend.
Stipends for Junior Fellowships may be payable over a period up to
2 calendar years of full-time graduate study, and those for Senior
Fellowships may be payable over a period of not more than 5 calendar
years of part-time graduate study, beginning with the dates under which
Fellows commence their graduate study under their fellowships. However,
the duration of stipend payments will be subject to the maximum payment
limits, the length of award time limits, and the completion of the
minimum degree requirements, whichever occurs first.
Sec. 2400.54 Use of stipend.
Stipends shall be used only to pay the costs of tuition, required
fees, books, room, and board associated with graduate study under a
fellowship. The costs allowed for a Fellow's room and board will be the
amount the Fellow's university reports to the Foundation as the cost of
room and board for a graduate student if that student were to share a
room at the student's university. If no shared graduate housing exists,
then costs for regular shared student housing will be used. If no
campus housing exists, the equivalent room and board costs at
neighboring universities will be used. Stipends for room, board, and
books will be pro-rated for Fellows enrolled in study less than full
time. The Foundation will not reimburse Fellows for any portion of
their master's degree study, that Fellows may have completed prior to
the commencement of their fellowships. Nor will the Foundation
reimburse Fellows for any credits acquired above the minimum number of
credits required for the degree. If a Fellow has already taken and paid
for courses that can be credited toward the Fellow's graduate degree
under a fellowship, those must be credited to the degree; the remaining
required courses will be paid for by the Foundation.
Sec. 2400.55 Certification for stipend.
In order to receive a fellowship stipend, a Fellow must submit the
following nine items in writing:
(a) An acceptance of the terms and conditions of the fellowship
including a completed certificate of compliance form;
(b) Evidence of admission to an approved graduate program;
(c) Certified copies of undergraduate and, if any, graduate
transcripts;
(d) A certified payment request form indicating the estimated costs
for tuition, required fees, books, room, and board;
(e) A photo copy of the university's bulletin of cost information;
(f) The amount of income from any other grants or awards;
(g) Information about the Fellow's degree requirements, including
the number of required credits to fulfill the degree;
(h) A statement of the university's willingness to accept the
transfer of 6 credits toward the Fellow's degree requirements for the
Fellow's satisfactory completion of the Summer Institute (see
Sec. 2400.51); and
(i) A full Plan of Study over the duration of the fellowship,
including information on the contents of required courses. Senior
Fellows must provide evidence of their continued full- time employment
as teachers in grades 7-12.
Sec. 2400.56 Payment of stipend.
Payment for tuition, required fees, books, room, and board subject
to the limitations in Sec. 2400.52 through Sec. 2400.55 and
Sec. 2400.59 through Sec. 2400.60 will be paid to each Fellow at the
beginning of each term of enrollment upon the Fellow's submission of a
completed Payment Request Form and the University bulletin of cost
information.
Sec. 2400.57 Termination of stipend.
(a) The Foundation may suspend or terminate the payment of a
stipend if a Fellow fails to meet the criteria set forth in
Sec. 2400.40 through Sec. 2400.44 and Sec. 2400.60, except as provided
for in Sec. 2400.61. Before it suspends or terminates a fellowship
under these circumstances, the Foundation will give notice to the
Fellow, as well as the opportunity to be heard with respect to the
grounds for suspension or termination.
(b) The Foundation will normally suspend the payment of a stipend
if a Fellow has more than one grade of ``incomplete'' in courses for
which the Foundation has made payment to the Fellow.
Sec. 2400.58 Repayment of stipend.
(a) If a Fellow fails to secure a master's degree, fails to teach
American history, American government, social studies, or political
science on a full-time basis in a secondary school for at least one
school year for each academic year for which assistance was provided
under a fellowship, fails to secure fewer than 12 semester hours or
their credit hour equivalent for study of the Constitution as indicated
in Sec. 2400.43(b), or fails to attend the Foundation's Summer
Institute on the Constitution, the Fellow must repay all of the
fellowship costs received plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum or
as otherwise authorized and, if applicable, reasonable collection fees,
as prescribed in section 807 of the Act (20 U.S.C. 4506(b)).
(b) If a Fellow withdraws from the fellowship or has a fellowship
terminated by the Foundation, the Foundation will seek to recover all
fellowship funds which have been remitted to the Fellow or on his or
her behalf under a fellowship.
Subpart G--Special Conditions
Sec. 2400.59 Other awards.
Fellows may accept grants from other foundations, institutions,
corporations, or government agencies to support their graduate study or
to replace any income foregone for study. However, the stipend paid by
the Foundation for allowable costs indicated in Sec. 2400.52 will be
reduced to the extent these costs are paid from other sources, and in
no
[[Page 25618]]
case will fellowship funds be paid to Fellows to provide support in
excess of their actual total costs of tuition, required fees, books,
room, and board. The Foundation may also reduce a Fellow's stipend if
the Fellow is remunerated for the costs of tuition under a research or
teaching assistantship or a work-study program. In such a case, the
Foundation will require information from a Fellow's university about
the intended use of assistantship or work-study support before
remitting fellowship payments.
Sec. 2400.60 Renewal of award.
(a) Provided that Fellows have submitted all required documentation
and are making satisfactory academic progress, it is the intent of the
Foundation to renew Junior Fellowship awards annually for a period not
to exceed two calendar years or the completion of their graduate
degrees, whichever comes first, and Senior Fellowships for a period not
to exceed 5 calendar years (except when those periods have been altered
because of changes in Fellows' Plan of Study as provided for in
Sec. 2400.64), or until a Fellow has completed all requirements for a
master's degree, whichever comes first. In no case, however, will the
Foundation continue payments under a fellowship to a Fellow who has
reached the maximum payments under a fellowship as indicated in
Sec. 2400.52, or completed the minimum number of credits required for
the degree. Although Fellows are not discouraged in taking courses in
addition to those required for the degree or required to maintain full-
time status, the Foundation will not in such cases pay for those
additional courses unless they are credited to the minimum number of
credits required for the degree.
(b) Fellowship renewal will be subject to an annual review by the
Foundation and certification by an authorized official of the
university at which a Fellow is registered that the Fellow is making
satisfactory progress toward the degree and is in good academic
standing according to the standards of each university.
(c) As a condition of renewal of awards, each Fellow must submit an
annual activity report to the Foundation by July 15th. That report must
indicate, through submission of a copy of the Fellow's most recent
transcript, courses taken and grades achieved; courses planned for the
coming year; changes in academic or professional plans or situations;
any awards, recognitions, or special achievements in the Fellow's
academic study or school employment; and such other information as may
relate to the fellowship and its holder.
Sec. 2400.61 Postponement of award.
Upon application to the Foundation, a Fellow may seek postponement
of his or her fellowship because of ill health or other mitigating
circumstances, such as military duty, temporary disability, necessary
care of an immediate family member, or unemployment as a teacher.
Substantiation of the reasons for the requested postponement of study
will be required.
Sec. 2400.62 Evidence of master's degree.
At the conclusion of graduate studies, each Fellow must provide a
certified transcript which indicates that he or she has secured an
approved master's degree as set forth in the Fellow's original Plan of
Study or approved modifications thereto.
Sec. 2400.63 Excluded graduate study.
(a) James Madison Fellowships do not provide support for study
toward doctoral degrees, for the degree of master of arts in public
affairs or public administration, or toward the award of teaching
certificates. Nor do fellowships support practice teaching required for
professional certification or other courses related to teaching unless
those courses are required for the degree. In those cases, however, the
Foundation will provide reimbursement only toward those courses related
to teaching that fall within the minimum number of courses required for
the degree, not in addition to that minimum.
Sec. 2400.64 Alterations to plan of study.
Although Junior Fellows are expected to pursue full-time study and
Senior Fellows to pursue part-time study, the Foundation may permit
Junior Fellows with an established need (such as the need to accept a
teaching position) to study part time and Senior Fellows with
established need (such as great distance between the Fellow's residence
and the nearest university, thus necessitating a full-time leave of
absence from employment in order to study) to study full time.
Sec. 2400.65 Teaching obligation.
Upon receiving a Master's degree, each Fellow must teach American
history, American government, social studies, or political science on a
full-time basis to students in secondary school for a period of not
less than one year for each academic year for which financial
assistance was received. Each Fellow will be required to provide the
Foundation with an annual certification from an official of the
secondary school where the Fellow is employed indicating the teaching
activities of the Fellow during the past year. This same certification
will be required each year until the Fellow's teaching obligation is
completed. Any teaching done by the Fellow prior to or during graduate
studies does not count towards meeting this teaching obligation.
Sec. 2400.66 Completion of fellowship.
A Fellow will be deemed to have satisfied all terms of a fellowship
and all obligations under it when the Fellow has completed no fewer
than 12 graduate semester hours or the equivalent of study of the
Constitution, formally secured the masters degree, attended the
Foundation's Summer Institute on the Constitution, completed teaching
for the number of years and fractions thereof required as a condition
of accepting Foundation support for study, and submitted all required
reports.
[FR Doc. 96-12790 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-05-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12780 Simplification of Deposit Insurance Rules
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25596-25598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12780]
========================================================================
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. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 25596]]
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
12 CFR Part 330
RIN 3064-AB73
Simplification of Deposit Insurance Rules
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC) is seeking comment on whether the deposit insurance
rules (insurance regulations) should be simplified and, if so, how. If
the Board finds simplification to be warranted, it will propose
specific amendments on which public comment will then be invited. The
purpose of this notice is to solicit comments to help guide the
possible preparation of a proposed rule. This notice presents only a
general description of the insurance simplification options being
considered and includes no regulatory text.
DATES: Written comments must be received by the FDIC on or before
August 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments are to be addressed to the Office of the
Executive Secretary, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20429. Comments may be hand-delivered to
Room F-402, 1776 F Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20429, on business
days between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. (FAX number: (202) 898-3838; Internet
address: [email protected]). Comments will be available for inspection
in the FDIC Public Information Center, room 100, 801 17th Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C., between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on business days.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph A. DiNuzzo, Acting Senior
Counsel, Legal Division, (202) 898-7349; Adrienne George, Attorney,
Legal Division, (202) 898-3859; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
550 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20429.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
One of the FDIC's corporate operating projects under its Strategic
Plan is to simplify the deposit insurance rules. The purpose is to
promote public understanding of deposit insurance and to increase
financial institution and consumer understanding of deposit insurance.
This Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) is one of the steps
in realizing the project's goals.
This effort to simplify the FDIC's insurance regulations, found in
12 CFR part 330 (part 330), also is intended to satisfy the provisions
in section 303(a) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory
Improvement Act of 1994, 12 U.S.C. 4803(a), to reduce regulatory burden
and improve efficiency.
The FDIC revised its insurance regulations twice in the recent
past. The first time, in 1990, was necessitated by the termination of
the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC). The
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989
(FIRREA) (Pub. L. 101-73, 103 Stat. 183 (1989)) required the FDIC to
issue uniform insurance regulations for deposits in all insured
depository institutions, including those previously insured by the
FSLIC. The second set of recent changes in the FDIC insurance rules
were made pursuant to provisions in the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA) (Pub. L. 102-242 (1991)).
A provision in FDICIA, in essence, limited the insurance coverage of
employee benefit and retirement plans. Also, in February 1995, the FDIC
issued disclosure requirements in connection with the limited
availability of insurance for employee benefit plan accounts, 60 FR
7701 (Feb. 9, 1995).
The amendments made to the insurance rules in 1990 not only
reconciled differences between the FSLIC insurance regulations and the
then-existing FDIC regulations, they also revised the insurance
regulations to, among other things, better organize and define terms
used in the regulations, convert long-standing interpretive opinions
into regulations, resolve outstanding issues and clarify ambiguous
provisions.
Although the insurance rules were revised relatively recently, the
Corporation believes, preliminarily, that at least some additional
modification to and simplification of the insurance rules would be
helpful. The need for these changes has been brought to the FDIC's
attention in several ways, especially through the steady receipt of
letters and phone calls on insurance questions. Experience with bank
and thrift failures also has enabled the staff to identify procedural
aspects of the regulations which, when applied in accordance with the
regulations, may prove unfair to certain depositors in some situations.
The FDIC must be mindful of the applicable statutory parameters in
considering whether and to what extent to modify the insurance
regulations. The general statutory basis for and guidance on deposit
insurance is found in section 11(a) of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Act (FDI Act), 12 U.S.C. 1821(a), which provides, in relevant part,
that deposits are insured up to $100,000 based on the ``right'' and
``capacity'' in which the deposits are maintained. The FDIC interprets
the ``right-and-capacity'' criterion as essentially meaning ownership.
Thus, the rules provide ``separate'' insurance coverage for different
types of accounts which are owned in different ways. For example,
accounts owned by an individual are not added to joint accounts in
which that same individual has an ownership interest. ``Separate''
insurance means that each category of account in which a person has an
ownership interest is covered for up to $100,000 separately insured
from the funds in other categories of accounts.
Possible Areas of Simplification
Preliminarily, the Board believes that certain technical and
moderate substantive revisions to the deposit insurance rules may be
warranted. Technical revisions would entail rewriting ambiguous
provisions of the rules and generally making the rules easier to
understand. Moderate substantive revisions would entail making some
substantive changes to the rules (and statute) but the FDIC intends to
retain the principles that insurance is based on deposit ownership and
that separate insurance coverage within the same institution depends
upon the different ``rights and capacities'' in which deposits can be
held.
[[Page 25597]]
The FDIC has identified the following possible revisions to the
insurance regulations and laws:
1. Rewrite certain parts of the rules to make them clearer and
easier to understand. Ambiguous and potentially ambiguous provisions of
the rules would be rewritten and part 330 might be reordered and
reorganized.
2. Eliminate step one of the two steps involved in determining
insurance coverage for joint accounts. Joint ownership is one of the
account categories that qualifies for separate insurance coverage. 12
CFR 330.7. Thus, an individual who has an individual deposit and
interests in joint accounts at the same insured bank or thrift would be
insured for up to $100,000 per category of account. Currently deposit
insurance for joint accounts is determined by a two-step process:
first, all joint accounts that are identically owned (i.e., held by the
same combination of individuals) are added together and the combined
total is insurable up to the $100,000 maximum; second, each person's
interests in joint accounts involving different combinations of
individuals are combined and the total is insured up to the $100,000
maximum.
One option to simplify the current joint account rules is to
eliminate the first step of the two-step process. Under this
alternative, all funds held in joint accounts would be allocated among
the owners and each owner's interests in all joint accounts (held at
the same depository institution) would be added and insured up to
$100,000 in the aggregate.
3. Revise the recordkeeping rules allowing the FDIC more
flexibility (for the benefit of depositors) in determining the
ownership of deposits held in a custodial or fiduciary capacity. The
insurance regulations impose specific recordkeeping requirements as a
precondition for insuring parties other than those whose names appear
on the depository institution's deposit account records. 12 CFR 330.4.
For example, if A is acting as an agent for B, C, and D and places
funds belonging to them in an insured bank or thrift, the institution's
deposit account records must show that A is holding the account as an
agent in order for the FDIC to recognize the ownership interests of B,
C and D. The FDIC will then insure the account as if it were held
directly by B, C, and D (the owners of the account) as long as the
institution's deposit account records or the agent's records
(maintained in ``good faith and in the regular course of business'')
evidence B, C and D's ownership interests in the account. In this
context, we say that the insurance ``passes-through'' the agent to the
owner(s) of the account.
The recordkeeping requirements intentionally limit the FDIC's
ability to consider evidence outside the deposit account records of an
insured institution in determining the ownership of deposits. They
establish a presumption that deposited funds are actually owned in the
manner indicated on the account records. Those records are binding on
the depositor if they are ``clear and unambiguous''. The FDIC has the
discretion, however, to decide whether records are clear and
unambiguous. If the FDIC determines that the records are unclear or
ambiguous, then it may consider evidence other than the deposit account
records. The question is whether this discretion provides the FDIC with
sufficient flexibility to recognize beneficial and/or multiple
ownership of accounts when such ownership is not reflected on the bank
or thrift's deposit account records.
The objective in amending the recordkeeping requirements would be
to allow the FDIC staff more flexibility to consider the actual
ownership interests in deposit accounts and thereby prevent possible
hardships. The proper balance must be struck, however, to avoid fraud
in post-failure situations and to enable the FDIC to reasonably and
expeditiously calculate the insured deposits at failing institutions.
One option would be to amend the rules to allow the FDIC to look beyond
the deposit accounts records of the depository institution where
account titles are indicative of a fiduciary relationship. Two examples
would be accounts held by attorneys and those held by entities such as
title companies, who commonly hold funds for others.
4. Consider changing the rules on ``payable upon death'' accounts.
The insurance rules provide for separate coverage for funds owned by an
individual and deposited into any account commonly referred to as a
``payable-on-death'' account, tentative or ``Totten'' trust account,
revocable trust account, or similar account (POD accounts). 12 CFR
330.8. The account must evidence an intention that upon the death of
the owner the funds shall belong to certain qualifying beneficiaries.
The qualifying beneficiaries are limited to the owner's spouse,
children and grandchildren. The owner is insured up to $100,000 as to
each such named qualifying beneficiary, separately from any other
accounts of the owner or the beneficiaries. Thus, if the individual
names his spouse, three children and two grandchildren as
beneficiaries, the account would be insured up to $600,000.
The FDI Act does not expressly require that POD accounts receive
separate insurance coverage. The purpose of the POD separate insurance
rule is to track state laws that allow for the so-called ``poor-man's
will'' in which deposit account balances can be transmitted upon the
death of the account owner to beneficiaries named in the account
without an underlying trust document or will. It is support for this
will-substitute that underlies the separate insurance for POD accounts.
The FDIC limits the qualifying beneficiaries to the spouse, children
and grandchildren of the account owner because it believes that such
limitation strikes a reasonable balance between providing separate
coverage to those most likely to be named as beneficiaries of a POD
account while not overly expanding this category of deposit insurance
coverage.
In the context of simplifying the insurance regulations, the
question arises whether the FDIC should consider revising the POD rules
on qualifying degrees of kinship. The FDIC, therefore, requests
comments on whether and, if so, how the POD insurance rules should be
revised.
5. Consider modifying the way the FDIC insures certain types of
accounts upon the death of the owner(s) of the accounts. The ownership
interest of a deposit account often changes upon the death of the owner
of the account. If the beneficiaries/executor of the decedent do not
act immediately after the decedent's death to change the nature of the
account, insurance coverage may be decreased, sometimes significantly.
For example, if a husband and wife hold a joint account, a payable-
upon-death account and two individual accounts in their respective
names, the death of one spouse would result in the surviving spouse
becoming the sole owner of the joint account and the payable-upon-death
account. Thus, the accounts would be aggregated with the surviving
spouse's individual account, possibly resulting in a substantial
reduction in insurance coverage.
The former FSLIC, as a matter of policy, allowed a grace period of
six months following the death of a depositor for the decedent's
deposits to be restructured. If an insured thrift failed during the
grace period and additional insurance would be available if the
decedent had not died, the FSLIC insured the account(s) based on the
account ownership shown on the institution's records as if the decedent
were still living. The reason for the FSLIC policy was to ``lessen the
[[Page 25598]]
hardship'' that might be caused otherwise. In the course of revising
the FDIC insurance regulations in 1990 (in conjunction with FSLIC's
termination) the FDIC decided against adopting the FSLIC's grace-period
policy because of the questionable underlying legal basis. The argument
is that insurance coverage is based on the ownership of the deposits.
If under the applicable state law the ownership of an account changes
immediately upon the account owner's death, then the FDIC should
recognize that change immediately.
The FDIC has limited flexibility to amend its regulations on the
insurance of accounts upon an owner's death. That is because, as
indicated above, deposit insurance is statutorily based on deposit
ownership. If the ownership of a particular deposit changes
automatically under the applicable state law upon the owner's death,
then the insurance coverage may change also. That is the FDIC's long-
standing position on the issue. Although the FDIC has concerns about
whether a sound legal basis exists for providing a ``grace period''
(for insurance purposes) on accounts owned by a person who dies, the
FDIC welcomes comments on this issue.
6. Recommend that the FDI Act be amended to change the way employee
benefit plans are insured. Under an amendment to the FDI Act made by
FDICIA, pass-through insurance coverage is not available to employee
benefit plan deposits that are accepted by an insured bank or thrift
when the institution does not meet prescribed capital requirements. 12
U.S.C. 1821(a)(1)(D). If an institution accepts employee benefit plan
deposits at a time when it is not sufficiency capitalized, such
deposits are insured only up to $100,000 per plan (as opposed to
$100,000 per participant or beneficiary). The FDICIA-originated
provision is the only one in the FDI Act and regulations to base
insurance coverage on the capital sufficiency of the insured
institution where the deposits are placed. The statute is complex and
very difficult for the industry and the public to understand. Moreover,
if deposits are made with an insured bank or thrift that does not meet
the prescribed capital requirements, there is no disadvantage to the
institution. The depositor is the disadvantaged party.
The FDIC believes Congress should replace the employee benefit plan
provision with a general prohibition against insured institutions
accepting employee benefit plan deposits when they are not sufficiently
capitalized. This would be consistent with the statute pertaining to
brokered deposits and, thus, would prevent the disadvantage to
depositors if an insured institution provides incorrect information
about its capital condition. Comments are requested on whether the FDIC
should recommend this statutory amendment to the Congress.
7. Consider revising the rules on living trust accounts. A ``living
trust'' is a formal trust in which the owner retains control of the
trust assets during his or her lifetime and designates the
beneficiaries of the assets upon his or her death. The owner may revoke
or change the terms of the trust during his or her lifetime. In 1993
the FDIC Legal Division prepared guidelines on the insurance of
revocable accounts, with an emphasis on living trusts. The guidelines
are very detailed and somewhat complex. At the same time the Legal
Division prepared the guidelines on living trusts, the FDIC also
adopted an informal policy not to review complex living trust documents
to determine POD coverage but, instead, to recommend that persons
inquiring about such coverage consult with the lawyer who drafted the
living trust. Despite the availability of the FDIC guidelines on living
trusts and the existence of the FDIC's current policy not to review
trust documents, the FDIC still receives numerous questions about the
insurance of POD accounts held in connection with living trusts.
One possibility in simplifying the insurance rules on living trusts
is to limit the scope of the POD regulation to accounts which name
qualifying beneficiaries without reference to any underlying trust
documents. The rule would apply only to the traditional POD account
intended as a free-standing will substitute and would not apply to any
other type of revocable trust extraneous to the POD account itself.
This interpretation of the POD provision would be consistent with the
original rationale for extending separate insurance coverage for this
category of account and revise the coverage rules for the formal type
of revocable account which has added unintended complexity and caused
expansion to this category of coverage.
Request for Comment
The Board of Directors of the FDIC is seeking comment on all of the
above-mentioned possible means of simplifying the deposit insurance
rules, including the likely effect of such changes on consumers and the
banking industry. The Board also is seeking suggestions on any other
ways that the rules might be streamlined, simplified and clarified.
By order of the Board of Directors.
Dated at Washington, D.C., this 14th day of May, 1996.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Deputy Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-12780 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12777 Proposal To Eliminate Fees Previously Adopted by the Commission Pursuant to the Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25601-25604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12777]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
17 CFR Parts 230, 240, 250, 270, and 275
[Release Nos. 33-7293; 34-37220; 35-26517; IC-21961; IA-1563; File No.
S7-14-96]
RIN 3235-AG79
Proposal To Eliminate Fees Previously Adopted by the Commission
Pursuant to the Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) is
proposing to eliminate each of the user fees currently adopted under
the Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952, in conjunction with
rules under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, the Investment
Company Act of 1940, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. These
fees were first adopted in 1972 to contribute towards the cost of
agency operations. However, since that time, the amount of fees
collected by the Commission has increased dramatically. In 1995, the
Commission collected nearly double the amount of fees required to fund
the agency's operations.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 8, 1996.
ADDRESSES: All interested persons are invited to submit their views and
comments concerning the rule proposal should be submitted in triplicate
to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, Mail Stop 6-9, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20549. Comments also may be submitted electronically at the following
E-mail address: [email protected]. All comment letters should refer
to File Number S7-14-96; this file number should be included in the
subject line if E-mail is used. Comment letters will be available for
inspection and copying in the public reference room at the same
address. Electronically submitted comments will be posted on the
Commission's Internet web site (http://www.sec.gov).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Henry I. Hoffman, Office of the
Comptroller, at (202) 942-0343.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Each fee identified for elimination is
listed on the attached table labeled TABLE OF IOAA FEES PROPOSED FOR
ELIMINATION.
Proposal
In 1972, to offset the cost to the government of related Commission
operations, the Securities and Exchange Commission established through
rulemaking a fee schedule for numerous types of applications,
statements and reports.1 These regulatory fees, authorized under
Title V of the Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 (31
U.S.C.A. 9701), are commonly referred to as IOAA fees.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Securities Act of 1933, Release No. 5229, January 25, 1972.
\2\ The Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952,
specifically 31 U.S.C. 9701, authorizes independent agencies of the
federal government to prescribe fees and charges for activities that
provide benefits to individuals and businesses. This statute states
that ``It is the sense of Congress that each service * * * provided
by an agency * * * to a person * * * is to be self-sustaining to the
extent possible.'' The statute also authorizes the head of each
agency to prescribe regulations establishing the charge for a
service. Notably, a separate provision of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) specifically authorizes the Commission to
impose fees authorized by this act. 15 U.S.C. 14(g)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, the Commission is proposing the elimination of each of its
current IOAA fees.3 The collection of these fees
[[Page 25602]]
is no longer appropriate since the amount of revenue currently
generated by statutory fees imposed under the securities laws far
exceeds the annual cost of Commission operations. The additional
revenue added by the IOAA fees is an insignificant portion of the total
revenue received. In fiscal 1972, the Commission collected $19 million
in fees and cost $27 million to operate. IOAA fees represented 12
percent of the total 1972 revenue. In fiscal 1995, the Commission
collected $559 million in fees and was appropriated $297 million for
operating costs. IOAA fees represented just 2 percent of the total 1995
revenue.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See attached table of IOAA fees. Note that the Commission's
proposal would only eliminate the collection of regulatory fees
imposed under the IOAA; it would not affect other fees imposed by
statute that are also collected by the Commission. These statutory
fees include registration fees collected pursuant to Section 6(b) of
the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and Section 307(b) of
the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, going private fees collected
pursuant to Section 13 of the Exchange Act, proxy and tender offer
fees collected pursuant to Section 14 of the Exchange Act, and
transaction fees collected pursuant to Section 31 of the Exchange
Act.
\4\ The vast increase in Commission fee revenue between 1972 and
1995 has developed from two basic sources. First is a significant
increase in the underlying value of the securities on which the
statutory fees are based. The underlying value of securities
registered with the Commission under Section 6(b) of the Securities
Act increased from $62 billion to $1.2 trillion from 1972 to 1995.
Further, during the same period, the value of shares transacted on
the U.S. securities exchanges and subject to a fee under Section 31
of the Exchange Act increased from $196 billion to $3 trillion.
Second is the increased use of offsetting collections under Section
6(b) of the Securities Act to fund agency operations since 1990. The
amount of offsetting revenue collected under Section 6(b) in 1991,
the first year fee revenue was used to directly offset Commission
funding, was $37 million at a fee rate of \1/40\ of one percent, and
in 1995 was $157 million at an increased fee rate of \1/29\ of one
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This significant difference between the amount of fee revenue
collected by the Commission and the amount of its annual funding level
has been of continuing concern to Congress. In 1988, the Securities
Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban
Affairs directed the Commission to study its fee structure and funding
status (Commission Fee Study).5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Senate Report 100-105, 100th Cong., 1st Session, and, in
response, Commission issued findings in a U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ``Self Funding Study'' (January 1989) and
accompanying ``Legislative Proposals and Fee Options'' (January
1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the Commission Fee Study and continuing
Congressional concerns about the level of the Commission's fees, in
1993 the House passed H.R. 2239, the Securities and Exchange Commission
Authorization Act of 1993. One of the stated purposes of this bill was
to ``establish a system for the annual adjustment of fees collected by
the Commission so that the total amount appropriated to the Commission
for any fiscal year will be offset by the amount collected during such
fiscal year * * *'' 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ H.R. 2239, Section 31A.(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Congress did not enact H.R. 2239, in 1995 members of the
Commission's authorization committee in the Senate stated that the
total amount of fees collected annually by the agency far exceed the
cost of its regulation and, therefore, should be reduced.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Letter dated April 6, 1995, from Senator D'Amato, Chairman
of the Senate Banking Committee, to Senators Domenici and Exon,
respectively Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on
the Budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 12, 1996, the House passed H.R. 2972, the ``Securities and
Exchange Commission Authorization Act of 1996.'' This bill has as a
major purpose, ``to reduce over time the rates of fees charged under
the Federal securities laws.'' 8 Notably, H.R. 2972 contains a
sense of the Congress resolution that the Commission should eliminate
its fees imposed under the IOAA.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ H.R. 2972, Section 2(2).
\9\ Ibid, Section 7(1) states that ``the fees authorized by the
amendments made by this Act are in lieu of, and not in addition to,
any fees that the Securities and Exchange Commission is authorized
to impose or collect pursuant to Section 9701 of title 31, United
States Code * * *''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is proposing to eliminate IOAA fees for two
additional reasons. First, the Commission is committed, consistent with
its mission of investor protection, to eliminate unnecessary
regulations imposed on the capital formation process. The Commission
has determined that eliminating these IOAA fees will reduce such
burdens but neither harm investors nor the Commission's mission to
protect them. Second, the collection of these IOAA fees imposes a
disproportionate cost on the Commission. In 1995, IOAA fees represented
less than 2% of the total fee revenue collected by the Commission, but
more than one-half of the total number of fee payments processed by
Commission staff, making recordkeeping for these fees
disproportionately costly.
Cost/Benefit Analysis
Comments are requested related to any costs or benefits associated
with the elimination of the Commission's current IOAA fees. The
elimination of IOAA fees will provide an obvious benefit to persons
obligated to pay such fees, i.e., they will no longer have to pay the
fees. In addition, the Commission will avoid the costs associated with
processing and auditing the collection of such fees; Commission
resources spent on those tasks will be reallocated to other mandated
tasks. Other costs and benefits are expected to be de minimis.
Summary of Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603 regarding the proposed rule
changes. The analysis reiterates the reasons and objectives for the
proposed rule changes discussed above in this release. The analysis
also describes the legal basis for the proposal and discusses its
effect on small entities as defined by the Securities Act, the Exchange
Act, the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, the Investment
Company Act of 1940, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. This
proposed rule imposes no additional reporting, recordkeeping or other
compliance requirements on small businesses, and the Commission
believes that there are no overlapping or conflicting federal rules. In
addition, the Commission does not believe that any significant
alternative to the proposal would both accomplish the stated objectives
and minimize any significant impact on small companies. In fact, the
alternatives to eliminating the fee would be to maintain or increase
the current fees. Neither alternative provides any increased benefit
nor is appropriate in the public interest. The Commission encourages
the submission of written comments with respect to the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. A copy of the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis may be obtained by contacting Henry I. Hoffman,
Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the Comptroller, Room
2080, Washington, D.C. 20549.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed
elimination of IOAA fees does not impose recordkeeping or information
collection requirements, or other collections of information which
require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Statutory Basis: The Commission's authority for this action is
31 U.S.C. 9701 and 15 U.S.C. 14(g)(4).
[[Page 25603]]
Securities and Exchange Commission Table of IOAA Fees Proposed for Elimination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fee cite Rule/form/schedule Amount Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Securities Act of 1933
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 CFR 230.236(a),(c).................. Rule 236.................. $100 Exemption of shares offered in
connection with certain
transactions.
17 CFR 230.252(f)...................... Form 1-A.................. 500 Offering statement under
Regulation A.
17 CFR 230.310(a)...................... Schedules A, B, C or D.... 100 Offering sheet under
Regulation B.
17 CFR 230.604(a)...................... Form 1-E.................. 100 Notification of offering under
Regulation E by a small
business investment company.
17 CFR 230.652......................... Form 1-F.................. 100 Notification under Regulation
F.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 CFR 240.0-11(c)(1)(ii).............. Schedule 14A.............. 125 Proxy Statement.
17 CFR 240.0-11(c)(1)(ii) 17 CFR Schedule 14C.............. 125 Information Statement.
240.14c-5(g).
17 CFR 240.12b-7....................... Form 8-A.................. 250 Registration of certain
classes of securities
pursuant to Section 12(b) or
(g).
17 CFR 240.12b-7....................... Form 8-B.................. 250 Registration of securities of
certain successor issuers
pursuant to Section 12(b) or
(g).
17 CFR 240.12b-7....................... Form 10................... 250 General form for registration
of securities pursuant to
Section 12(b) or (g).
17 CFR 240.12b-7....................... Form 10-SB................ 250 Optional form for the
registration of securities of
a small business issuer.
17 CFR 240.12b-7....................... Form 18................... 250 Application for registration
of securities of foreign
governments and political
subdivisions thereof.
17 CFR 240.12b-7, 17 CFR 240.13a-1, 17 Form 20-F................. 250 Registration of securities of
CFR 240.15d-1. foreign private issuers
pursuant to Section 12 (b) or
(g) and annual reports
pursuant to Sections 13 and
15(d)
17 CFR 240.12b-7, 17 CFR 240.13a-1, 17 Form 40-F................. 250 Registration of securities of
CFR 240.15d-1. certain Canadian issuers
pursuant to Section 12(b) or
(g) and for reports pursuant
to Section 15(d) and Rule 15d-
4.
17 CFR 240.13a-1, 17 CFR 240.15d-1..... Form 10-K................. 250 Annual report pursuant to
Sections 13 and 15(d).
17 CFR 240.13a-1, 17 CFR 240.15d-1..... Form 10-KSB............... 250 Optional form for annual
report of small business
issuers under Sections 13 and
15(d).
17 CFR 240.13a-1....................... Form 18-K................. 250 Annual report for foreign
governments and political
subdivisions thereof.
17 CFR 240.13d-7....................... Schedule 13D, Schedule 13D/ 100 Schedule for reporting
A (if amended to >5%). beneficial ownership of more
than five percent in an
equity security.
17 CFR 240.13d-7....................... Schedule 13G, Schedule 13G/ 100 Short form schedule for
A (if amended to >5%). reporting beneficial
ownership of more than five
percent in an equity security
17 CFR 240.14a-6(i).................... Schedule 14A.............. 125/500 Proxy Statement.
17 CFR 240.14a-101 (Item 22(a)(2))..... Schedule 14A.............. 125 Proxy filing fee for
investment companies.
17 CFR 240.15d-1....................... Form 11-K................. 250 Annual report for employee
stock purchase savings and
similar plans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 CFR 250.1(d)........................ Form U5S.................. 250 Annual report of registered
holding company.
17 CFR 250.94(b)....................... Form U-13-60.............. 250 Annual report of mutual or
subsidiary service company.
17 CFR 250.106......................... Form U-1.................. 2,000 Application-declaration
statement.
17 CFR 250.106......................... Form U-3A-2............... 2,000/500 Annual holding company
exemption statement.
17 CFR 250.106......................... Form U-3A3-1.............. 500 Bank exemption statement.
17 CFR 250.106......................... Form U-13-1............... 2,000 Application for approval of
mutual or subsidiary service
company.
17 CFR 250.106......................... Form U-7D................. 200/100 Certificate of lease of
utility facilities.
17 CFR 250.106......................... Form U-R-1................ 2,000 Declaration regarding a
reorganization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investment Company Act of 1940
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 CFR 240.14a-101 (Item 22(a)(2))..... Schedule 14A.............. 125 Proxy filing fee.
17 CFR 270.0-5(d)...................... Rule 0-5.................. 500 Application under the 1940
Act.
17 CFR 270.8b-6........................ Rule 8b-6, Forms N-1A, N- 1,000 1940 Act registration fee.
2, N-3, N-4 and N-5.
17 CFR 270.24f-2(a)(3)................. Rule 24f-2................ 500 Registration of an indefinite
amount of securities.
17 CFR 270-30a-1....................... Rule 30-1................. 125 Form N-SAR filing fee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 25604]]
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act'')
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 CFR 275.0-5(d)...................... Rule 0-5.................. 150 Application under the Advisers
Act.
17 CFR 275.203-3(a).................... Rule 203-3................ 150 Advisers Act registration fee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ (First/subseq.).
Dated: May 16, 1996.
By the Commission.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-12777 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12763 Establishing Departmental Procedures To Authorize Class III Gaming on Indian Lands When a State Raises an Eleventh Amendment Defense To Suit Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 25604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12763]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
25 CFR Part 291
RIN 1076-AD67
Establishing Departmental Procedures To Authorize Class III
Gaming on Indian Lands When a State Raises an Eleventh Amendment
Defense To Suit Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document corrects the name of the issuing agency and the
CFR part number for the advance notice of proposed rulemaking regarding
Class III Indian gaming on Indian lands published on May 10, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
George Skibine, Director, Indian Gaming Management Staff, (202) 219-
4066.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Beginning on page 21394 in the issue of
Friday, May 10, 1996, make the following corrections on page 21394:
1. In the heading of the document, under the heading ``Department
of the Interior,'' the issuing agency was previously listed as the
National Indian Gaming Commission. This should be changed to read
Bureau of Indian Affairs.
2. In the CFR heading of the document, the CFR citation was
previously listed as 25 CFR Part 525. This should be changed to read 25
CFR Part 291.
3. The agency in the AGENCY caption is corrected to read ``Bureau
of Indian Affairs, Interior.''
Dated: May 16, 1996.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-12763 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12728 Airworthiness Directives; de Havilland Model DHC-7 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25598-25600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12728]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-158-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; de Havilland Model DHC-7 Series
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to all de Havilland Model DHC-7
series airplanes. This proposal would require certain structural
inspections, and repair, if necessary. This proposal is prompted by a
structural re-evaluation, which identified certain significant
structural items to inspect for fatigue cracking as these airplanes
approach and exceed the manufacturer's original design life. The
actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent fatigue
cracking in these areas which, if not detected and corrected in a
timely manner, could reduce the structural integrity of these
airplanes.
DATES: Comments must be received by July 1, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-158-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 de Havilland, Inc., Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario
M3K 1Y5, Canada. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sol Maroof, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA,
[[Page 25599]]
New York Aircraft Certification Office, Engine and Propeller
Directorate, 10 Fifth Street, Third Floor, Valley Stream, New York
11581; telephone (516) 256-7522; fax (516) 568-2716.
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-158-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-158-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
Transport Canada Aviation, which is the airworthiness authority for
Canada, recently notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on
all de Havilland Model DHC-7 series airplanes. Service experience shows
that transport category aircraft of this type require certain
supplemental structural inspections and maintenance to compensate for
the effects of prolonged time-in-service. As a result, the manufacturer
has conducted a structural reassessment of these airplanes and has
identified additional significant structural items where fatigue damage
is likely to occur. The criteria for this reassessment are contained in
FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 91-60, ``Continued Airworthiness of Older
Airplanes.''
Explanation of Relevant Service Information
De Havilland has issued Temporary Revision (TR 5-84), dated June
15, 1994, of the DHC-7 Maintenance Manual (PSM 1-7-2), Chapter 5-60-00.
TR 5-84 was developed based on service experience with the purpose of
extending the Model DHC-7 series airplanes' life beyond 40,000 total
flights cycles. It describes procedures for repetitive detailed visual
inspections to detect cracks, loose or broken fasteners, and
deformations of the vertical stabilizer, horizontal stabilizer, and
lower skin panels of the wing. That document also indicates that
operators should submit the results of these inspections to the
manufacturer. Transport Canada Aviation classified this document as
mandatory and issued Canadian airworthiness directive CF-94-19, dated
October 6, 1994, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of
these airplanes in Canada.
FAA's Conclusions
This airplane model is manufactured in Canada 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, Transport Canada Aviation has kept
the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined
the findings of Transport Canada Aviation, 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 that operators incorporate, into their FAA-
approved maintenance inspection program, the inspections specified in
DHC-7 Maintenance Manual (PSM 1-7-2), Chapter 5-60-00, Temporary
Revision (TR 5-84), dated June 15, 1994. The actions would be required
to be accomplished in accordance with the document described
previously.
Additionally, the proposed AD would require the repair of any
findings of cracks, loose or broken fasteners, or deformations in
accordance with either:
1. The DHC-7 Maintenance Manual; or
2. The DHC-7 Structural Repair Manual;
3. Other data meeting the certification basis of the airplane which
is approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office,
FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate; or
-4. Data meeting the certification basis of the airplane which is
approved by Transport Canada Aviation.
Cost Impact
The FAA estimates that 50 airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 15 work
hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the
average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the
cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$45,000, or $900 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
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 25600]]
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:
De Havilland, Inc.: Docket 95-NM-158-AD.
Applicability: All Model DHC-7 series airplanes, certificated in
any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
other modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To ensure the continuing structural integrity of these
airplanes, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD,
incorporate into the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program the
inspections and inspection intervals defined in DHC-7 Maintenance
Manual (PSM 1-7-2), Chapter 5-60-00, Temporary Revision (TR 5-84),
dated June 15, 1994; and inspect the significant structural items
prior to the thresholds specified in TR 5-84 of PSM 1-7-2. Repeat
the inspections thereafter at the intervals specified in TR 5-84 of
PSM 1-7-2.
(b) Prior to further flight, repair any discrepancies detected
during any inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD in
accordance with one of the following:
(1) The DHC-7 Maintenance Manual; or
(2) The DHC-7 Structural Repair Manual; or
(3) Other data meeting the certification basis of the airplane
which is approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate; or
(4) Data meeting the certification basis of the airplane which
is approved by Transport Canada Aviation.
(c) All inspection results, positive or negative, must be
reported to de Havilland in accordance with ``Introduction,''
paragraph 5, of DHC-7 Maintenance Manual (PSM 1-7-2), Chapter 5-60-
00, Temporary Revision (TR 5-84), dated June 15, 1994. Information
collection requirements contained in this regulation have been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, New York ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Manager, New York ACO.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
Secs. 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the
requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 15, 1996.
S.R. Miller,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-12728 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12624 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for Ozone-Depleting Substances
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25604-25612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12624]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[FRL-5507-6]
RIN 2060-AG12
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for
Ozone-Depleting Substances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes restrictions or prohibitions on
substitutes for ozone depleting substances ((ODS)) under the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) program. SNAP implements section 612 of the amended Clean
Air Act of 1990 which requires EPA to evaluate and regulate substitutes
for the ODS to reduce overall risk to human health and the environment.
Through these evaluations, SNAP generates lists of acceptable and
unacceptable substitutes for each of the major industrial use sectors.
The intended effect of the SNAP program is to expedite movement away
from ozone depleting compounds while avoiding a shift into high-risk
substitutes posing other environmental problems.
On March 18, 1994, EPA promulgated a final rulemaking setting forth
its plan for administering the SNAP program (59 FR 13044), and issued
decisions on the acceptability and unacceptability of a number of
substitutes. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA is
issuing its preliminary decisions on the acceptability of certain
substitutes not previously reviewed by the Agency. To arrive at
determinations on the acceptability of substitutes, the Agency
completed a cross-media evaluation of risks to human health and the
environment by sector end-use.
DATES: Written comments or data provided in response to this document
must be submitted by June 21, 1996. A public hearing, if requested,
will be held in Washington, D.C. Any hearing will be strictly limited
to the subject matter of this proposal, the scope of which is discussed
below. If such a hearing is requested, it will be held on June 6, 1996,
and the comment period would then be extended to July 8, 1996. Anyone
who wishes to request a hearing should call Sally Rand at (202) 233-
9739 by May 29, 1996. Interested persons may contact the Stratospheric
Protection Hotline at 1-800-296-1996 to learn if a hearing will be held
and to obtain the date and location of the hearing.
ADDRESSES: Public Comments. Written comments and data should be sent to
Docket A-91-42, Central Docket Section, South Conference Room 4, U.S.
Environmental Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The
docket may be inspected between 8 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekdays.
Telephone (202) 260-7549; fax (202) 260-4400. As provided in 40 CFR
part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for photocopying. To expedite
review, a second copy of the comments should be sent to Sally Rand,
Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, U.S.
EPA, 401 M Street, SW., 6205-J, Washington, DC. 20460. Information
designated as Confidential Business Information (CBI) under 40 CFR part
2 subpart B must be sent directly to the contact person for this
notice. However, the Agency is requesting that all respondents submit a
non-confidential version of their comments to the docket as well.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Smagin at (202) 233-9126 or fax
(202) 233-9577, Stratospheric Protection Division, USEPA, Mail Code
6205J, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview of This Action
This action is divided into five sections, including this overview:
[[Page 25605]]
I. Overview of This Action
II. Section 612 Program
A. Statutory Requirements
B. Regulatory History
III. Proposed Listing of Substitutes
IV. Administrative Requirements
V. Additional Information
Appendix: Summary of Proposed Listing Decisions
II. Section 612 Program
A. Statutory Requirements
Section 612 of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to develop a
program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA
refers to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are:
Rulemaking--Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules
making it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon,
halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and
hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (hydrochlorofluorocarbon)
substance with any substitute that the Administrator determines may
present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the
Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the
overall risk to human health and the environment, and (2) is
currently or potentially available.
Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes--Section 612(c)
also requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes unacceptable
for specific uses. EPA must publish a corresponding list of
acceptable alternatives for specific uses.
Petition Process--Section 612(d) grants the right to any person
to petition EPA to add a substitute to or delete a substitute from
the lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency
has 90 days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the
petition, EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional
six months.
90-day Notification--Section 612(e) requires EPA to require any
person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance to
notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing
chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant
new uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must
also provide the Agency with the producer's unpublished health and
safety studies on such substitutes.
Outreach--Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall
seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and
resources to assist users of class I and II substances in
identifying and developing alternatives to the use of such
substances in key commercial applications.
Clearinghouse--Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a
public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes,
and alternative manufacturing processes that are available for
products and manufacturing processes which use class I and II
substances.
B. Regulatory History
On March 18, 1994, EPA published the Final Rulemaking (FRM) (59 FR
13044) which described the process for administering the SNAP program
and issued EPA's first acceptability lists for substitutes in the major
industrial use sectors. These sectors include: refrigeration and air
conditioning; foam blowing; solvent cleaning; fire suppression and
explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and
inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal
industrial sectors that historically consume large volumes of ozone-
depleting compounds.
The Agency defines a ``substitute'' as any chemical, product
substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or
new, that could replace a class I or class II substance. Anyone who
produces a substitute must provide the Agency with health and safety
studies on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into
interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. This
requirement applies to chemical manufacturers, but may include
importers, formulators or end-users when they are responsible for
introducing a substitute into commerce.
III. Proposed Listing of Substitutes
To develop the lists of unacceptable and acceptable substitutes,
EPA conducts screens of health and environmental risks posed by various
substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds in each use sector. The
outcome of these risk screens can be found in the public docket.
Under section 612, the Agency has considerable discretion in the
risk management decisions it can make in SNAP. The Agency has
identified five possible decision categories: acceptable, acceptable
subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits;
unacceptable; and pending. Acceptable substitutes can be used for all
applications within the relevant sector end-use. Conversely, it is
illegal to replace an ODS with a substitute listed by SNAP as
unacceptable for that end-use. A pending listing represents substitutes
for which the Agency has not received complete data or has not
completed its review of the data.
After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may make a determination
that a substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions of use are
met to minimize risks to human health and the environment. Such
substitutes are placed on the acceptable subject to use conditions
lists. Use of such substitutes in ways that are inconsistent with such
use conditions renders these substitutes unacceptable.
Even though the Agency can restrict the use of a substitute based
on the potential for adverse effects, it may be necessary to permit a
narrowed range of use within a sector end-use because of the lack of
alternatives for specialized applications. Users intending to adopt a
substitute acceptable with narrowed use limits must ascertain that
other acceptable alternatives are not technically feasible. Companies
must document the results of their evaluation, and retain the results
on file for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. This documentation
shall include descriptions of substitutes examined and rejected,
processes or products in which the substitute is needed, reason for
rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety
standards, and the anticipated date other substitutes will be available
and projected time for switching to other available substitutes. Use of
such substitutes in application and end-uses which are not specified as
acceptable in the narrowed use limit renders these substitutes
unacceptable.
In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), EPA is issuing its
preliminary decision to restrict use of certain substitutes not
previously reviewed by the Agency. As described in the final rule for
the SNAP program (59 FR 13044), EPA believes that notice-and-comment
rulemaking is required to place any alternative on the list of
prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute as acceptable only under
certain use conditions or narrowed use limits, or to remove an
alternative from either the list of prohibited or acceptable
substitutes.
EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are required to
list alternatives as acceptable with no limitations. Such listings do
not impose any sanction, nor do they remove any prior license to use a
substitute. Consequently, EPA periodically adds substitutes to the list
of acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on new
listings. Updates to the acceptable and pending lists are published in
separate Notices in the Federal Register.
Parts A. through C. below present a detailed discussion of the
proposed substitute listing determinations by major use sector. Tables
summarizing listing decisions in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are
in Appendix A. The comments contained in Appendix A provide additional
information on a substitute. Since comments are not part of the
regulatory decision, they are not mandatory for use of a substitute.
Nor should the comments be considered comprehensive with respect to
other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute.
However, EPA encourages users of
[[Page 25606]]
substitutes to apply all comments in their application of these
substitutes. In many instances, the comments simply allude to sound
operating practices that have already been identified in existing
industry and/or building-code standards. Thus, many of the comments, if
adopted, would not require significant changes in existing operating
practices for the affected industry.
A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. CFC-12 Automobile and Non-automobile Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioners, Retrofit and New. EPA is concerned that the existence of
several substitutes in this end-use may increase the likelihood of
significant refrigerant cross-contamination and potential failure of
both air conditioning systems and recovery/recycling equipment. In
addition, a smooth transition to the use of substitutes strongly
depends on the continued purity of the recycled CFC-12 supply. In order
to prevent cross-contamination and preserve the purity of recycled
refrigerants, EPA is proposing several conditions on the use of all
motor vehicle air conditioning refrigerants. For the purposes of this
proposed rule, no distinction is made between ``retrofit'' and ``drop-
in'' refrigerants; retrofitting a car to use a new refrigerant includes
all procedures that result in the air conditioning system using a new
refrigerant. Please note that EPA only reviews refrigerants based on
environmental and health factors.
In particular, when retrofitting a CFC-12 system to use any
substitute refrigerant, the following conditions must be met:
Each refrigerant may only be used with a set of
fittings that is unique to that refrigerant. These fittings (male or
female, as appropriate) must be used with all containers of the
refrigerant, on can taps, on recovery, recycling, and charging
equipment, and on all air conditioning system service ports. These
fittings must be designed to mechanically prevent cross-charging
with another refrigerant. A refrigerant may only be used with the
fittings and can taps specifically intended for that refrigerant.
Using an adapter or deliberately modifying a fitting to use a
different refrigerant will be a violation of this use condition. In
addition, fittings shall meet the following criteria, derived from
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards and recommended
practices:
--When existing CFC-12 service ports are to be retrofitted,
conversion assemblies shall attach to the CFC-12 fitting with a
thread lock adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching mechanism
in a manner that permanently prevents the assembly from being
removed.
--All conversion assemblies and new service ports must satisfy the
vibration testing requirements of sections 3.2.1 or 3.2.2 of SAE
J1660, as applicable, excluding references to SAE J639 and SAE
J2064, which are specific to HFC-134a.
--In order to prevent discharge of refrigerant to the atmosphere,
systems shall have a device to limit compressor operation before the
pressure relief device will vent refrigerant. This requirement is
waived for systems that do not feature such a pressure relief
device.
--All CFC-12 service ports not retrofitted with conversion
assemblies shall be rendered permanently incompatible for use with
CFC-12 related service equipment by fitting with a device attached
with a thread lock adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching
mechanism in a manner that prevents the device from being removed.
When a retrofit is performed, a label must be used as
follows:
--The person conducting the retrofit must apply a label to the air
conditioning system in the engine compartment that contains the
following information:
* The name and address of the technician and the company
performing the retrofit
* The date of the retrofit
* The trade name, charge amount, and, when applicable, the
ASHRAE refrigerant numerical designation of the refrigerant
* The type, manufacturer, and amount of lubricant used
* If the refrigerant is or contains an ozone-depleting
substance, the phrase ``ozone depleter''
* If the refrigerant displays flammability limits as measured
according to ASTM E681, the statement ``This refrigerant is
FLAMMABLE. Take appropriate precautions.''
--This label must be large enough to be easily read and must be
permanent.
--The background color must be unique to the refrigerant.
--The label must be affixed to the system over information related
to the previous refrigerant, in a location not normally replaced
during vehicle repair.
--Information on the previous refrigerant that cannot be covered by
the new label must be permanently rendered unreadable.
No substitute refrigerant may be used to ``top-off'' a
system that uses another refrigerant. The original refrigerant must
be recovered in accordance with regulations issued under section 609
of the CAA prior to charging with a substitute.
Since these use conditions necessitate unique fittings and labels,
it will be necessary for developers of automotive refrigerants to
consult with EPA about the existence of other alternatives. Such
discussions will lower the risk of duplicating fittings already in use.
No determination guarantees satisfactory performance from a
refrigerant. Consult the original equipment manufacturer or service
personnel for further information on using a refrigerant in a
particular system.
(a) All refrigerants. All refrigerants listed in future notices as
being acceptable as substitutes for CFC-12 in retrofitted and new motor
vehicle air conditioners are proposed to be subject to the use
conditions described above.
In the March 18, 1994 FRM (59 FR 13044), EPA established that the
public would be informed via a Notice when substitutes are added to the
acceptable list. If EPA intended to place any restrictions, including
use conditions, on the use of a substitute, that determination would
require full notice-and-comment rulemaking. In this NPRM, however, EPA
proposes to modify that approach for motor vehicle air conditioning
systems (MVACS).
As explained above, EPA is concerned about potential cross-
contamination because of the large number of MVAC refrigerants. In this
NPRM, EPA is proposing to impose the same use conditions on all future
MVAC refrigerants as were imposed on HFC-134a and HCFC Blend Beta (60
FR 31092), and were proposed for HCFC Blend Delta and Blend Zeta (60 FR
51383). Because of EPA's interest in timely review of substitute
refrigerants, EPA believes it is appropriate to propose that these use
conditions be applied to all future refrigerants for use in motor
vehicle air conditioning, thereby removing the requirement for future
notice-and-comment rulemaking on this issue. In the future, EPA will
add refrigerants to the list of automotive substitutes that are
acceptable subject to use conditions without notice-and-comment
rulemaking. Such action will occur in the same manner as Notices of
Acceptability. If further restrictions are necessary for a specific
refrigerant (for example, if a substitute is found unacceptable), then
EPA will propose such action in notice-and-comment rulemaking.
(b) R-406A. R-406A, which consists of HCFC-22, HCFC-142b, and
isobutane, is proposed acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in
retrofitted and new motor vehicle air conditioners, subject to the use
conditions applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning described
above, in addition to the requirement that retrofitting an MVAC system
to R-406A must include replacing non-barrier hoses with barrier hoses.
Because HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b contribute to ozone depletion, this blend
is considered a transitional alternative. Regulations regarding
recycling and reclamation issued under section 608 of the Clean Air Act
apply to this blend. HCFC-142b has one of the highest ODPS among the
HCFCS. The GWPS of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b are
[[Page 25607]]
somewhat high. Although HCFC-142b and isobutane are flammable, the
blend is not. After significant leakage, however, this blend may become
weakly flammable. The manufacturer has performed a risk assessment that
demonstrates that it can be used safely in this end-use. There is
concern that HCFC-22 will seep out of traditional hoses. Thus, at the
manufacturer's suggestion, EPA is imposing an additional condition that
barrier hoses must be used with R-406A. Note: R-406A is sold under the
trade names ``GHG'' and ``McCool.''
The R-406A submission contained the first risk assessment that
attempted to quantify the additional risk posed by using a refrigerant
that is nonflammable but that may fractionate to a flammable state. EPA
invites comment on this risk assessment, which may be obtained from
USEPA Air Docket A-91-42, file VI-D-120. The assessment concludes that
an additional 0.018 injuries will occur per million vehicles annually.
This value is extremely low. In addition, even an error of a factor of
100 would still result in very low additional risk.
(c) HCFC Blend Lambda. HCFC Blend Lambda, which consists of HCFC-22,
HCFC-142b, and isobutane, is proposed acceptable as a substitute for
CFC-12 in retrofitted and new motor vehicle air conditioners, subject
to the use conditions applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning
described above, in addition to the requirement that HCFC Blend Lambda
must be used with barrier hoses. Because HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b
contribute to ozone depletion, they will be phased out of production.
Therefore, this blend will be used primarily as a retrofit refrigerant.
However, HCFC Blend Lambda is acceptable for use in new systems,
subject to the same use conditions. Regulations regarding recycling and
reclamation issued under section 608 of the Clean Air Act apply to this
blend. HCFC-142b has one of the highest ODPS among the HCFCS. The GWPS
of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b are somewhat high. Although HCFC-142b and
isobutane are flammable, the blend is not. After significant leakage,
this blend may become weakly flammable. However, this blend contains
more HCFC-22 and less of the two flammable components than R-406A, and
therefore should be at least as safe to use as R-406A. In addition, as
discussed above in the R-406A section, the manufacturer has performed a
risk assessment that demonstrates that R-406A can be used safely in
this end-use. Finally, as stated above, this blend contains even lower
percentages of flammable components than R-406A.
There is concern that HCFC-22 will seep out of traditional hoses.
Thus, at the manufacturer's suggestion, EPA is imposing an additional
condition that barrier hoses must be used with R-406A. Note: this blend
is sold under the trade name ``GHG-HP.''
(d) HCFC Blend Xi, HCFC Blend Omicron. HCFC Blend Xi and HCFC Blend
Omicron, both of which consist of HCFC-22, HCFC-124, HCFC-142b, and
isobutane, are proposed acceptable as substitutes for CFC-12 in
retrofitted and new motor vehicle air conditioners, subject to the use
conditions applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning described
above, in addition to the requirement that these blends must be used
with barrier hoses. Because HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b contribute to ozone
depletion, they will be phased out of production. Therefore, these
blends will be used primarily as retrofit refrigerants. However, these
blends are acceptable for use in new systems, subject to the same use
conditions. Regulations regarding recycling and reclamation issued
under section 608 of the Clean Air Act apply to these blends. HCFC-142b
has one of the highest ODPS among the HCFCS. The GWPS of HCFC-22 and
HCFC-142b are somewhat high. Although HCFC-142b and isobutane are
flammable, these blends are not. In addition, testing on these blends
has shown that they do not become flammable after leaks. EPA is
concerned that HCFC-22 will seep out of traditional hoses. Thus, EPA is
proposing an additional condition that barrier hoses must be used with
HCFC Blend Xi and HCFC Blend Omicron. Note: HCFC Blend Xi is being sold
under the trade names ``GHG-X4'', ``Autofrost'', and ``Chill-It,'' and
HCFC Blend Omicron is being sold under the trade names ``Hot Shot'' and
``Kar Kool.''
B. Solvent Cleaning
1. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. Electronics Cleaning.
(a) HFC-4310mee. HFC-4310mee is proposed as an acceptable substitute
for CFC-113 and methyl chloroform (MCF) in electronics cleaning subject
to a 200 ppm time-weighted average workplace exposure standard and a
400 ppm workplace exposure ceiling. HFC-4310mee is a new chemical that
has just completed review by EPA's Premanufacture Notice Program under
the Toxic Substances Control Act. This chemical does not deplete the
ozone layer since it does not contain chlorine or bromine. It does have
some potential to contribute to global warming since its 500-year
Global Warming Potential (GWP) is 520 and it has a 20.8 year lifetime.
However, the GWP and lifetime for HFC-4310 are both lower than the GWP
and lifetime for CFC-113 and significantly lower than for PFCs, which
are other substitutes for ozone-depleting solvents.
HFC-4310mee does exhibit some toxicity in tests reviewed by EPA,
and causes central nervous system effects at relatively low levels.
However, these effects are reversible and cease once chemical exposure
is eliminated. Review under the SNAP program and the PMN program
determined that a time-weighted average workplace exposure standard of
200 ppm and a workplace exposure ceiling of 400 ppm would be adequately
protective of human health and that companies could readily meet these
exposure limits using the types of equipment specified in the product
safety information provided by the chemical manufacturer.
These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its
own standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in
no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as
defined in P.L. 91-596.
B. Precision Cleaning
(a) HFC-4310mee. HFC-4310mee is proposed as an acceptable substitute
for CFC-113 and methyl chloroform in precision cleaning subject to a
200 ppm time-weighted average workplace exposure standard and a 400 ppm
workplace exposure ceiling. The reasoning behind this determination is
presented above in the section on electronics cleaning.
These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its
own standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in
no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as
defined in P.L. 91-596.
2. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
a. Electronics Cleaning.
(a) Perfluoropolyethers. Perfluoropolyethers are proposed as acceptable
substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the electronics cleaning sector for
high performance, precision-engineered applications only where
reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives
are not technically feasible due to performance
[[Page 25608]]
or safety requirements. These chemicals have global warming
characteristics comparable to the perfluorocarbons and, as a result,
are proposed to be subject to the same restrictions. A full discussion
of the global warming concerns and related risk management decision can
be found under 59 FR 13044 (March 18, 1994, at p. 13094)
b. Precision Cleaning.
(a) Perfluoropolyethers. Perfluoropolyethers are proposed as acceptable
substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in the precision cleaning sector for
high performance, precision-engineered applications only where
reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other alternatives
are not technically feasible due to performance or safety requirements.
These chemicals have global warming characteristics comparable to the
perfluorocarbons and, as a result, are proposed to be subject to the
same restrictions. A full discussion of the global warming concerns and
related risk management decision can be found under 59 FR 13044 (March
18, 1994, at p. 13094).
3. Unacceptable
a. Electronics Cleaning.
(a) HCFC-141b. HCFC-141b is unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-113
and MCF in electronics cleaning under existing rules (59 FR 13044;
March 18, 1994); today's notice proposes to amend this unacceptability
determination and proposes existing uses of HCFC-141b as acceptable in
high-performance electronics cleaning until January 1, 1997. This
proposed determination extends the use date for HCFC-141b in solvent
cleaning, but only for existing users in high-performance electronics
and only for one year. The extension does not affect the production
phaseout date for HCFC-141b, which is January 1, 2003.
The extension should not be viewed as a reason to postpone
replacement of 141b. Alternatives exist for nearly all solvent cleaning
applications of 141b, and the principal reason for the extension is the
long lead time necessary to test, select, and implement a chosen
substitute in high-performance applications where stringent
qualifications testing is the norm.
Existing regulations affect 141b in two ways. Under the production
phaseout for ozone-depleting substances (ODS), 141b has a phaseout date
of January 1, 2003. This regulation, developed under section 604 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), states that chemical manufacturers will no longer
be allowed to manufacture 141b as of that date (40 CFR Part 82, Subpart
G, Appendix A). HCFC-141b is also subject to a number of use
restrictions relevant to solvent cleaning operations. According to
regulations developed under section 612 of the CAA--the SNAP program--
the only companies allowed to use 141b in solvent cleaning equipment
are existing users. Existing users were defined in the March 1994
determination as companies who had 141b-based solvent cleaning
equipment in place as of April 18, 1994. No new substitutions into 141b
for solvent cleaning were permitted, and even existing users may use
141b only until January 1, 1996. This use ban date for existing users
is the subject of the extension in today's proposal. HCFCS, including
141b, are also covered by other use restrictions such as the
nonessential ban (section 610) and labeling (section 611). The 610 and
611 regulations are not discussed here. If you need more information
about these regulations, call the Stratospheric Ozone Protection
Hotline at 1-800-296-1996.
Many users and vendors of 141b have requested that the Agency
postpone the effective date of the use ban under SNAP for solvent
cleaning beyond January 1, 1996. In response to these petitions, EPA is
proposing an extension. Note, however, that the only change is that
existing uses in high-performance electronics cleaning would be
permitted for an additional year until January 1, 1997. (Precision
cleaning uses are also extended in today's proposal, but are listed in
the next section.) ``High-performance electronics'' would include high-
value added components for aerospace, military, or medical applications
such as hybrid circuits or other electronics for missile guidance
systems. The existing policy of no new substitutions into 141b is
maintained and uses of 141b in metals cleaning and basic electronics
cleaning would still end as of January 1, 1996. These restricted
applications include cleaning of basic, formed metal parts and high-
volume electronics cleaning such as components for consumer
electronics.
An important distinction is that ``solvent cleaning'' in the SNAP
program is defined to cover replacements of ODS in industrial cleaning,
either in vapor degreasing or cold cleaning. It does not include
aerosol applications, which are covered separately under the SNAP
program. It also does not include other solvent cleaning uses of ODS
such as in textile cleaning, dry cleaning, flushing of automotive air
conditioning systems, or hand wiping. This means, for instance, that
the use ban date does not apply to 141b used for hand wiping. However,
users should understand that although these uses are not currently
governed by the SNAP program, responsible corporate policy would be to
implement alternatives to ODS where possible. Additionally, SNAP
reserves the right to regulate any use where significant environmental
differences exist in the choice of alternatives.
To minimize the paperwork burden, no reporting is proposed for
companies that qualify for an extension.
The extension is not an excuse to delay selecting an alternative.
The principal reason for extending the permissible period of use for
141b in these narrowed applications is not that alternatives do not
exist, but that users need more time to qualify and implement
alternatives. Even with the extension, uses of 141b in the specified
applications will only be permitted for another 12 months beyond the
current use ban date. This additional time can only be used
productively if users begin now to select, test, order equipment and
materials, etc.
The search for alternatives should include not just aqueous and
semi-aqueous alternatives, but also recently developed cleaning
chemicals and technologies. Information on vendors of substitutes is
available from the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline. Call 1-800-
296-1996 and ask for the Vendor List for Precision Cleaning. In
addition, EPA has more detailed information available on topics such as
retrofitting 141b degreasers to use HFCS or on cleaning of medical
devices.
b. Precision Cleaning.
(a) HCFC-141b. HCFC-141b is unacceptable as a substitute for CFC-113
and MCF in precision cleaning under existing rules (59 FR 13044; March
18, 1994); today's notice proposes to amend this unacceptability
determination and proposes existing uses of HCFC-141b as acceptable in
precision cleaning until January 1, 1997. This proposed determination
extends the use date for HCFC-141b in solvent cleaning, but only for
existing users in precision cleaning and only for one year. The
extension does not affect the production phaseout date for HCFC-141b,
which is January 1, 2003.
For a full discussion of the rationale for extension, please see
the previous section on electronics cleaning. This discussion applies
in full to users of precision cleaning, which for purposes of this
extension is defined to include cleaning of devices of high-value
added, precision-engineered parts such as precision ball bearings for
navigational devices, or other components for aerospace, or medical
uses.
[[Page 25609]]
C. Aerosols
1. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
a. Solvents.
(a) Perfluorocarbons. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are proposed as
acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF for aerosol applications
only where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other
alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety
requirements. EPA is proposing to permit the use of PFCs in aerosols
applications despite their global warming potential since so few
nontoxic, nonflammable solvents exist and this sector presents a high
probability of worker exposure and safety risks. PFCs are already
subject to similar restrictions in the solvents cleaning sector due to
global warming concerns (59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994). This decision,
if implemented as proposed, will allow users to select PFCs in the
event of performance or safety concerns while guarding against
widespread, unnecessary use of these potent greenhouse gases.
(b) Perfluoropolyethers. Perfluoropolyethers (PFPEs) are proposed as
acceptable substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF for aerosol applications
only where reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain that other
alternatives are not technically feasible due to performance or safety
requirements. EPA is proposing to permit the use of perfluoropolyethers
in aerosols applications despite their global warming potential since
so few nontoxic, nonflammable solvents exist and this sector presents a
high probability of worker exposure and safety risks. PFCs, which have
global warming potentials comparable to the PFPEs, are already subject
to similar restrictions in the solvents cleaning sector due to global
warming concerns (59 FR 13044, March 18, 1994). This decision, if
implemented as proposed, will allow users to select perfluoropolyethers
in the event of performance or safety concerns while guarding against
widespread, unnecessary use of these potent greenhouse gases.
2. Unacceptable
a. Propellants.
(a) SF6. SF6 is proposed as unacceptable substitute for CFC-11, CFC-12,
HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in aerosol applications. This chemical has been
of commercial interest as a compressed gas propellant substitute for
ozone-depleting propellants. It has an atmospheric lifetime of 3,200
years and a 100-year global warming potential (GWP) of 24,900. CFC-11,
in contrast, has a lifetime of 50 years and a GWP of 4,000. Formulators
have indicated to the EPA that other compressed gases such as CO2
would work equally well and could be formulated at similar or lower
cost.
3. Amendment to List of Substances Being Replaced
EPA proposes today to add CFC-12 and CFC-114 to the list of aerosol
propellants being replaced by substitutes reviewed under SNAP. This
will ensure that companies replacing these CFCS in their products will
be able to adhere to SNAP rulings in the replacement process. The
environmental trade-offs associated with replacing CFC-12 and CFC-114
versus CFC-11 do not change significantly, since the ODPS for all the
CFCS are roughly the same.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive Order.''
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB notified EPA
that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within the
meaning of the Executive Order and EPA submitted this action to OMB for
review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations
have been documented in the public record.
B. Unfunded Mandates Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
EPA to prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule
that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by
state, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section 203 requires
the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing
any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely affected by
the rule. Section 205 requires that regulatory alternatives be
considered before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact
statement is prepared. The Agency must select the least costly, most
cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
rule's objectives, unless there is an explanation why this alternative
is not selected or this alternative is inconsistent with law.
Because this proposed rule is estimated to result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments or the private
sector of less than $100 million in any one year, the Agency has not
prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the
selection of the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative. Because small governments will not be significantly or
uniquely affected by this proposed rule, the Agency is not required to
develop a plan with regard to small governments.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 604(a), applies to any
rulemaking that is subject to public notice and comment requirements.
The Act requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be performed or
the head of the Agency certifies that a rule will not have a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
The Agency believes that this proposed rule will not have a
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities and has
therefore concluded that a formal RFA is unnecessary. Because costs of
the SNAP requirements as a whole are expected to be minor, the is
unlikely to adversely affect businesses, particularly as the rule
exempts small sectors and end-uses from reporting requirements and
formal agency review. In fact, to the extent that information gathering
is more expensive and time-consuming for small companies, this rule may
well provide benefits for small businesses anxious to examine potential
substitutes to any ozone-depleting class I and class II substances they
may be using, by requiring manufacturers to make information on such
substitutes available.
[[Page 25610]]
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR No. 1774.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE
Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(2136), 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-
2740. The reasons for these information requirements are explained in
the section on automobile air conditioning (III.A.1.a), and the
requirements will be mandatory under section 612 of the Clean Air Act
once the ICR is approved.
EPA is proposing to apply the information requirements described
above to this rulemaking, previous similar rulemakings, and future
rulemakings. Therefore, once the ICR is approved and this proposed rule
is finalized, the ICR will also apply to requirements described in
rules published on June 13, 1995 (60 FR 31092) and a rule expected to
be published in April, 1996.
EPA estimates that the burden of learning about the requirements
will be approximately ten minutes, and that filling out each required
label itself will take under one minute. Burden means the total time,
effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2136), 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any
correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the
ICR between 30 and 60 days after May 22, 1996, a comment to OMB is best
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by June 21, 1996.
The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
V. Additional Information
For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists or additional
information on SNAP contact the Stratospheric Protection Hotline at 1-
800-296-1996, Monday-Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m. (EST).
For more information on the Agency's process for administering the
SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the
SNAP final rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18,
1994 (59 FR 13044). Federal Register notices can be ordered from the
Government Printing Office Order Desk, (202) 783-3238; the citation is
the date of publication. Notices and rulemaking under the SNAP program
can also be retrieved electronically from EPA's Protection of
Stratospheric Ozone Technology Transfer Network (TTN), Clean Air Act
Amendment Bulletin Board. The access number for users with a 1200 or
2400 bps modem is (919) 541-5742. For users with a 9600 bps modem the
access number is (919) 541-1447. For assistance in accessing this
service, call (919) 541-5384 during normal business hours (EST).
Finally, all ozone depletion-related NPRMS, FRMs, and Notices may be
retrieved from EPA's Ozone Depletion World Wide Web site, at http://
www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/title6/usregs.html.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 13, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is proposed
amended as follows:
PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
2. Section 82.180 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(8)(ii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 82.180 Agency review of SNAP submissions.
(a) * * *
(8) * * *
(ii) Communication of Decision to the Public. The Agency will
publish in the Federal Register periodic updates to the list of the
acceptable and unacceptable alternatives that have been reviewed to
date. In the case of substitutes proposed as acceptable with use
restrictions, proposed as unacceptable or proposed for removal from
either list, a rulemaking process will ensue. Upon completion of such
rulemaking, EPA will publish revised lists of substitutes acceptable
subject to use conditions or narrowed use limits and unacceptable
substitutes to be incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations.
(See Appendices to this subpart.)
* * * * *
3. Subpart G is amended by adding Appendix D to read as follows:
Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
* * * * *
Appendix D to Subpart G--Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions and
Unacceptable Substitutes Listed
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Proposed Use Conditions
R-406A/``GHG''/``McCool'', ``GHG-HP'', ``GHG-X4''/``Autofrost''/
``Chill-It'', ``Hot Shot''/``Kar Kool'', and all refrigerants when
listed in subsequent notices, are proposed acceptable subject to the
following conditions when used to retrofit a CFC-12 motor vehicle
air conditioning system or
[[Page 25611]]
when used in a new motor vehicle air conditioning system:
1. Each refrigerant may only be used with a set of fittings that is
unique to that refrigerant. These fittings (male or female, as
appropriate) must be used with all containers of the refrigerant, on
can taps, on recovery, recycling, and charging equipment, and on all
air conditioning system service ports. These fittings must be
designed to mechanically prevent cross-charging with another
refrigerant. A refrigerant may only be used with the fittings and
can taps specifically intended for that refrigerant. Using an
adapter or deliberately modifying a fitting to use a different
refrigerant will be a violation of this use condition. In addition,
fittings shall meet the following criteria, derived from Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards and recommended practices:
a. When existing CFC-12 service ports are to be retrofitted,
conversion assemblies shall attach to the CFC-12 fitting with a
thread lock adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching mechanism
in a manner that permanently prevents the assembly from being
removed.
b. All conversion assemblies and new service ports must satisfy
the vibration testing requirements of sections 3.2.1 or 3.2.2 of SAE
J1660, as applicable, excluding references to SAE J639 and SAE
J2064, which are specific to HFC-134a.
c. In order to prevent discharge of refrigerant to the
atmosphere, systems shall have a device to limit compressor
operation before the pressure relief device will vent refrigerant.
This requirement is waived for systems that do not feature such a
pressure relief device.
d. All CFC-12 service ports shall be retrofitted with conversion
assemblies or shall be rendered permanently incompatible for use
with CFC-12 related service equipment by fitting with a device
attached with a thread lock adhesive and/or a separate mechanical
latching mechanism in a manner that prevents the device from being
removed.
2. When a retrofit is performed, a label must be used as follows:
a. The person conducting the retrofit must apply a label to the
air conditioning system in the engine compartment that contains the
following information:
i. The name and address of the technician and the company
performing the retrofit
ii. The date of the retrofit
iii. The trade name, charge amount, and, when applicable, the
ASHRAE refrigerant numerical designation of the refrigerant
iv. The type, manufacturer, and amount of lubricant used
v. If the refrigerant is or contains an ozone-depleting
substance, the phrase ``ozone depleter''
vi. If the refrigerant displays flammability limits as measured
according to ASTM E681, the statement ``This refrigerant is
FLAMMABLE. Take appropriate precautions.''
b. This label must be large enough to be easily read and must be
permanent.
c. The background color must be unique to the refrigerant.
d. The label must be affixed to the system over information
related to the previous refrigerant, in a location not normally
replaced during vehicle repair.
e. Information on the previous refrigerant that cannot be
covered by the new label must be permanently rendered unreadable.
3. No substitute refrigerant may be used to ``top-off'' a system
that uses another refrigerant. The original refrigerant must be
recovered in accordance with regulations issued under section 609 of
the CAA prior to charging with a substitute.
Solvent Cleaning Sector--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Proposed Decision Conditions Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics Cleaning w/ CFC- HFC-4310mee Acceptable......... Subject to a 200 ppm
113 and MCF. time-weighted
average workplace
exposure standard
and a 400 ppm
workplace exposure
ceiling.
Precision Cleaning w/ CFC-113 HFC-4310mee Acceptable......... Subject to a 200 ppm
and MCF. time-weighted
average workplace
exposure standard
and a 400 ppm
workplace exposure
ceiling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solvent Sector--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Proposed decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics Cleaning w/ CFC- Perfluoropolyethers............ Perfluoropolyethers are PFPEs have
113 and MCF. proposed as acceptable similar global
substitutes for CFC-113 and warming
MCF in the precision cleaning profile to the
sector for high performance, PFCs, and the
precision-engineered SNAP decision
applications only where on PFPEs
reasonable efforts have been parallels that
made to ascertain that other for PFCs.
alternatives are not
technically feasible due to
performance or safety
requirements.
Precision Cleaning w/ CFC-113 Perfluoropolyethers............ Perfluoropolyethers are PFPEs have
and MCF. proposed as acceptable similar global
substitutes for CFC-113 and warming
MCF in the precision cleaning profile to the
sector for high performance, PFCs, and the
precision-engineered SNAP decision
applications only where on PFPEs
reasonable efforts have been parallels that
made to ascertain that other for PFCs.
alternatives are not
technically feasible due to
performance or safety
requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Proposed decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics Cleaning w/CFC-113 HCFC-141b Extension of existing This proposed
and MCF. unacceptability determination extends
determination to grant the use date for HCFC-
existing uses in high- 141b in solvent
performance electronics cleaning, but only for
permission to continue existing users in high-
until January 1, 1997. performance electronics
and only for one year.
[[Page 25612]]
Precision Cleaning w/CFC-113 and HCFC-141b Extension of existing This proposed
MCF. unacceptability determination extends
determination to grant the use date for HCFC-
existing uses in 141b in solvent
precision cleaning cleaning, but only for
permission to continue existing users in
until January 1, 1997. precision cleaning and
only for one year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerosols Sector--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Proposed Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-113, MCF, and HCFC-141b as Perfluorocarbons................ Perfluorocarbons are PFCs have extremely
aerosol solvents. proposed as long atmospheric
acceptable lifetimes and high
substitutes for Global Warming
aerosol applications Potentials. This
only where reasonable decision reflects
efforts have been these concerns and is
made to ascertain patterned after the
that other SNAP decision on PFCs
alternatives are not in the solvent
technically feasible cleaning sector.
due to performance or
safety requirements.
Perfluoropolyethers............. Perfluorocarbons are PFPEs have similar
proposed as global warming
acceptable profile to the PFCs,
substitutes for and the SNAP decision
aerosol applications on PFPEs parallels
only where reasonable that for PFCs in the
efforts have been solvent cleaning
made to ascertain sector.
that other
alternatives are not
technically feasible
due to performance or
safety requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Unacceptable Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-use Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-11, CFC-12, HCFC-22, and HCFC- SF6 Unacceptable................ SF6 has the highest GWP of
142b as aerosol propellants. all industrial gases, and
other compressed gases
meet user needs in this
application equally well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-12624 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude
Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.