issue-1995-10-23•Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-10-23
Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-10-23
issue-1995-10-23Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-10-23Proposed 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. 95-26202 Inspection/Maintenance Ozone Transport Region Flexibility Amendments
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 204 (Monday, October 23, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54321-54325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26202]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 51
[FRL-5313-7]
Inspection/Maintenance Ozone Transport Region Flexibility
Amendments
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes revisions to the motor vehicle
Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) requirements by adding a special low
enhanced performance standard for qualified areas in Ozone Transport
Regions (OTR). EPA announced its intent to amend certain aspects of the
I/M Program Requirements in December 1994 and held stakeholders'
meetings on January 24, 1995 and January 31, 1995. A public hearing was
held on May 17, 1995. Many of the comments received during that
rulemaking came from OTR stakeholders who were concerned that the
proposed changes did not address metropolitan areas in the OTR that
were attainment, marginal, or moderate areas. Today's supplemental
action proposes to create an additional performance standard which
would apply to attainment, marginal and moderate areas in the OTR. The
fundamental goal is to allow those OTR qualifying areas the flexibility
to implement a broader range of I/M programs than is currently
permitted.
DATES: Written comments on this proposal must be received no later than
November 22, 1995. No public hearing will be held unless a request is
received in writing by October 30, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit written comments (in duplicate
if possible) to Public Docket No. A-95-08. It is requested that a
duplicate copy be submitted to Eugene J. Tierney at the address in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below. The docket is located at
the Air Docket, Room M-1500 (6102), Waterside Mall S.W., Washington, DC
20460. The docket may be inspected between 8:30 a.m. and 12 noon and
between 1:30 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. on weekdays. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying docket material.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene J. Tierney, Office of Mobile
Sources, National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth
Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105. Telephone (313) 668-4456.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Contents
II. Summary of Proposal
III. Authority
IV. Background of the Proposed Amendment
V. Discussion of Major Issues
A. Emission Impact of the Proposed Amendments
B. Impact on Existing and Future I/M Programs
VI. Economic Costs and Benefits
VII. Public Participation
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation
B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirement
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Act
II. Summary of Proposal
Under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (the Act), 42 U.S.C.
7401 et seq., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published
in the Federal Register on November 5, 1992 (40 CFR part 51, subpart S)
rules related to plans for Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/
M) programs (hereafter referred to as the I/M rule; see 57 FR 52950).
EPA is proposing today to further revise this rule to provide greater
flexibility to certain Ozone Transport Region (OTR) areas.
Section 182 of the Act is prescriptive regarding the various
elements that are required as part of an enhanced I/M performance
standard. It also provides states with flexibility in meeting the
numerical performance standards for enhanced or basic I/M programs.
States in the OTR have requested additional flexibility in implementing
I/M in areas
[[Page 54322]]
which are in attainment, which are areas designated and classified as
marginal ozone areas or which are designated and classified as moderate
ozone areas under 200,000 in population. These three types of areas
would be exempt from I/M requirements but for their location in the
Ozone Transport Region. These OTR areas are included in the Act to help
achieve overall attainment and maintenance goals for the region, which
includes serious, and severe ozone nonattainment areas.
EPA is today proposing to establish an additional enhanced I/M
performance standard for qualified areas in the Northeast OTR,
hereafter referred to as the OTR low enhanced performance standard. The
emission reduction targets for this program are less than both the low
enhanced performance standard and the basic performance standard. There
are two qualifications to be eligible for the OTR low enhanced
performance standard. First, the standard would apply only in
attainment areas, marginal ozone nonattainment areas and certain
moderate ozone nonattainment areas under 200,000 in an OTR. Moderate
areas of that size that were not previously required to, or had not in
fact implemented, a basic I/M program under the pre-1990 Act could take
advantage of the OTR low enhanced performance standard. Section
182(a)(2)(B)(i) requires areas that had or were required to have I/M
programs pre-1990 to retain programs of at least that stringency in
their SIPs. Because, as explained below, EPA believes the Act requires
an enhanced I/M program to be an enhancement over otherwise applicable
I/M requirements, areas subject to basic I/M could not adopt the less
stringent OTR low enhanced program. Any moderate area with urbanized
areas having a total population of over 200,000 would also be required
to implement basic I/M under section 182(b)(4) and would thus be
ineligible for the OTR low enhanced standard. Second, the OTR low-
enhanced program must be supplemented by other measures in order to
achieve the emission reductions that would have occurred had a regular
low-enhanced I/M program been implemented (as defined by Sec. 51.351(g)
of 40 CFR). This is because the primary goal of the Act in establishing
the OTR provisions and requiring enhanced I/M in areas with a
population of 100,000 or more in the OTR was to contribute to regional
attainment and EPA believes that an area should be able to qualify for
the additional flexibility provided under the OTR low enhanced standard
only if it achieves in some other way, the additional reductions that
the otherwise applicable low-enhanced I/M program would achieve. Thus,
the total emission reductions from the I/M program plus the additional
measures would have to equal the tonnage reduction that a regular low-
enhanced program would have generated. However, since local reductions
are not the crucial factor, a state may bubble surplus reductions from
other areas not required to implement I/M in the state. For example, a
state could implement a statewide reformulated gasoline (RFG) program
(note that EPA has recently asked for comment on whether attainment
areas can opt in to the reformulated gasoline program and a decision
has not yet been made on this issue) plus an OTR low enhanced program
in subject areas or statewide and potentially achieve comparable
reductions to a regular low enhanced program because of the additional
reductions RFG would achieve in areas not otherwise required to have
RFG. Equality of emission reductions must be demonstrated over a time
period which aligns with the attainment deadlines of all OTR areas:
from 2000 through 2007. Note that an I/M program that meets an OTR low
enhanced performance standard must be implemented even if other
measures could achieve comparable emission reductions because the Act
specifically requires an enhanced I/M program in metropolitan areas
with 100,000 population in the OTR. Measures to fill the gap between
OTR low and regular low enhanced I/M may not be otherwise required by
the Clean Air Act. EPA invites comment on whether and how a state may
use credits obtained through an Open Market Trading program to satisfy
the equal reduction requirement.
The OTR low enhanced performance standard model program is composed
of the following elements: annual testing of 1968 and newer light duty
vehicles and light duty trucks, OBD checks for 1996 and newer vehicles,
remote sensing of 1968-1995 vehicles, catalyst checks on 1975 and newer
vehicles, and PCV valve checks on pre-1975 vehicles. These elements
collectively satisfy the Act's requirements that the enhanced I/M
program performance standard include certain listed features.
The emission reduction targets generated by this model program
cannot be precisely modeled at this time but EPA estimates the targets
to be less than those for the basic I/M program standard (which are
approximately 6.3% for HC, 10.8% for CO, and 0.7% for NOX). As
soon as EPA completes development of guidance on remote sensing
credits, an analysis of the emission reduction targets generated by
this model program will be placed in the docket. In that the OTR low
enhanced standard is less than basic I/M, the question arises as to how
this standard meets the requirement of the Act for ``enhanced'' I/M.
There are two important facts to consider in this regard: first,
neither the Act nor the legislative history specifies that the emission
reduction targets for enhanced I/M must be greater than basic in all
cases. EPA believes the Act provides the agency latitude in
establishing multiple performance standards to meet a wide range of
state and local needs and conditions. Second, the areas eligible to
take advantage of this performance standard were not required to nor
did they implement I/M programs prior to 1990. So, in all cases, this
standard establishes a program target that is enhanced relative to what
was present or required for the area before enactment of the 1990
Amendment or is otherwise required after the 1990 Amendments.
As is the case with all performance standard model programs, EPA
does not necessarily recommend implementation of the model program,
since it is constrained in composition by law (e.g., EPA recommends not
testing cars until they reach 4 years of age and recommends biennial
testing as more cost-effective; by contrast, the enhanced I/M
performance standards are required by the Act to reflect a model
program that includes annual testing of all vehicles). In that the
emission reduction targets for this performance standard are below the
basic level, this standard provides the broadest possible latitude in
program design. For example, some states in the OTR have existing
decentralized, safety inspection programs. Comprehensive visual checks
of emission control devices, a gas cap pressure test, the Act-mandated
OBD check, and the Act-mandated on-road testing could be added to these
programs. Many other possibilities exist for program designs that could
meet this performance standard.
While the proposed OTC low enhanced performance standard is less
demanding than the existing performance standard applicable to the
affected areas, the proposed regulatory changes will ensure that
enhanced I/M programs in these areas meet statutory criteria for EPA
approval. A state's OTR low enhanced program is required, under
Sec. 182(c)(3)(C) of the Clean Air Act, to include computerized
analyzers and on-road testing devices; computerized equipment and on-
road testing devices are required by the
[[Page 54323]]
current rule and apply to the OTR low-enhanced program. A state's OTR
low-enhanced program shall also include a regulatory framework for
waivers, if waivers are to be issued, and an enforcement system through
registration denial; the proposed amendments leave requirements in this
regard the same as for other enhanced I/M areas. As mandated by the
Act, in an OTR low enhanced program, vehicle emissions shall be tested
annually unless biennial testing will equal or exceed the reductions
that can be obtained from annual inspections. A program could combine
biennial inspections on the vehicles equipped with OBD with biennial
evaporative system checks to achieve the necessary additional
reductions. The OTR low-enhanced program shall operate on a centralized
basis, unless an alternative program with decentralized inspections
meets the same performance standard. The performance standard itself is
based on centralized inspections of OBD-equipped vehicles and on-road
remote sensing testing; EPA believes that this meets the specific
requirement that the performance standard be based on centralized
testing.
Also, today's proposal would establish quality assurance
requirements for OTR low enhanced I/M programs that are commensurate
with the emission reductions the programs are intended to achieve. In
particular, current rules require enhanced I/M programs to be evaluated
by conducting test-only IM240s on a random representative sample of the
fleet (a minimum of 0.1%) to verify that the emission reductions are
occurring. EPA believes that the emission reductions from an OTR low
enhanced program are small enough that this level of effort is not
necessarily justified. Also, the routine quality assurance requirements
are also not necessarily appropriate in light of the low level of
benefits of the program.
EPA also proposes to modify the exclusion rule for counties within
MSAs in the Ozone Transport Region. The modification would allow states
to exclude counties that comprise less than 1% of the population of the
MSA. Inclusion of such a small fraction of the population is not worth
the significant cost of expanding geographic coverage of the program to
include such a county.
EPA proposes that the implementation date for full testing in areas
opting for the OTR low performance standard be no later than the latest
date, by which full testing can commence and still achieve sufficient
reductions to meet the performance standard by the Act's attainment and
reasonable further progress deadlines including the end of 1999
attainment date for serious ozone nonattainment areas. This will
generally mean a start date no later than January 1, 1999, for annual
testing programs, although EPA proposes to accept field testing
commencing as late as July 1, 1999 if the full I/M reductions can be
achieved by the serious areas attainment date. Note that the
performance standard model program assumes a start date of January 1,
1999 because EPA believes Congress intended that the performance
standard be based on at least one complete annual test cycle. With the
requirement to offset the emissions difference between OTR low and
regular low enhanced, this date ensures that attainment in the region
is not impaired.
EPA's proposal would also serve to provide other flexibilities to
non-OTR states in designing quality assurance programs. The intent is
to allow alternative quality assurance procedures that are as effective
or better than those specified in the rule.
III. Authority
Authority for the action proposed in this notice is granted to EPA
by section 182 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, et
seq.).
IV. Background of the Proposed Amendments
The features of the enhanced I/M performance standard model program
are used to generate the minimum performance target that a state must
meet. When programmed into the most current version of EPA's mobile
source emission factor model (hereafter referred to as MOBILE5a), these
features produce a target emission factor (emissions per mile of
vehicle travel) which a state's proposed program must not exceed to be
deemed minimally acceptable for purposes of state implementation plan
(SIP) approval. This combination of features, however, does not
constitute either a required or recommended program design. The use of
the performance standard approach allows EPA to meet Congress's dual
statutory requirements that the EPA develop a performance standard
based on certain statutory features and that the standard provide
states with maximum flexibility to design I/M programs to meet local
needs.
EPA maintains that the Act in no way bars it from establishing more
than one enhanced I/M performance standard. EPA believes that precedent
exists for the adoption of multiple enhanced I/M performance standards,
tailored to the unique needs of certain areas, and points to the case
of El Paso, Texas, for which a separate, enhanced I/M performance
standard was created [57 FR 52989, Sec. 51.351 (e)]
V. Discussion of Major Issues
A. Emission Impact of the Proposed Amendments
EPA is still in the process of evaluating the emission impact of
the OTR enhanced I/M performance standard. The evaluation process is
based on a number of inputs, including credits awarded for RSD, and is
modeled using MOBILE5a and national average values for vehicle age mix,
mileage accumulation, and other area and fleet related variables. Once
EPA finalizes RSD credits, an analysis of the emission reduction
targets generated by this model program will be placed in the docket.
The emission impact of the OTR enhanced performance standard is
expected to be neutral since the proposed change would not reduce the
total emission reductions that states must achieve. The scope of this
change is also limited to attainment areas, marginal ozone areas, and
certain moderate ozone areas below 200,000 population in the Ozone
Transport Region.
B. Impact on Existing and Future I/M Programs
Only states that choose to utilize the proposed OTR performance
standard will be affected by today's proposal. Modifications to a
state's I/M program as a result of this rule change may require a SIP
revision, if a plan has already been submitted. Each case is likely to
be different, depending upon the magnitude of the change. It is
important to note that today's proposal in no way increases the
existing burden on states. States that currently comply, or are in the
process of complying, with the existing I/M rule would only be affected
by today's rule revisions if they so choose. Today's proposed
amendments represent opportunities for those states that can meet the
criteria set forth in today's proposal; under no circumstances are
these proposed opportunities to be construed as mandatory obligations.
VI. Economic Costs and Benefits
Today's proposed revisions provide states additional flexibility
that lessens rather than increases the potential burden on states.
Furthermore, states are under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to
modify existing plans meeting the previously applicable requirements as
a result of today's proposal.
[[Page 54324]]
VII. Public Participation
EPA desires full public participation in arriving at final
decisions in this Rulemaking action. EPA solicits comments on all
aspects of this proposal from all parties. Wherever applicable, full
supporting data and detailed analysis should also be submitted to allow
EPA to make maximum use of the comments. All comments should be
directed to the Air Docket, Docket No. A-95-08.
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation
It has been determined that this proposed amendment to the I/M rule
is not a significant regulatory action under the terms of Executive
Order 12866 and are therefore not subject to OMB review. Any impacts
associated with these revisions do not constitute additional burdens
when compared to the existing I/M requirements published in the Federal
Register on November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950) as amended. Nor does the
proposed amendment create an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more or otherwise adversely affect the economy or the
environment. It is not inconsistent with nor does it interfere with
actions by other agencies. It does not alter budgetary impacts of
entitlements or other programs, and it does not raise any new or
unusual legal or policy issues.
B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirement
There are no information requirements in this supplemental proposed
rule which require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget
under the Paperwork Reduction Act 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator certifies that this proposal will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities and, therefore, is not subject to the requirement of a
Regulatory Impact Analysis. A small entity may include a small
government entity or jurisdiction. A small government jurisdiction is
defined as ``governments of cities, counties, towns, townships,
villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of
less than 50,000.'' This certification is based on the fact that the I/
M areas impacted by the proposed rulemaking do not meet the definition
of a small government jurisdiction, that is, ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than 50,000.'' Furthermore, the
impact created by the proposed action does not increase the pre-
existing burden which this proposal seeks to amend.
D. Unfunded Mandates Act
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule where the estimated costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, will be $100 million or more.
Under Section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule and is
consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to
establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that
may be significantly impacted by the rule.
To the extent that the rules being proposed by this action would
impose any mandate at all as defined in Section 101 of the Unfunded
Mandates Act upon the state, local, or tribal governments, or the
private sector, as explained above, this proposed rule is not estimated
to impose costs in excess of $100 million. Therefore, EPA has not
prepared a statement with respect to budgetary impacts. As noted above,
this rule offers opportunities to states that would enable them to
lower economic burdens from those resulting from the currently existing
I/M rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Transportation.
Dated: October 3, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 51 of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended to read as
follows:
PART 51--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 51 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. Section 51.350 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and
adding (b)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 51.350 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) Extent of area coverage. (1) In an ozone transport region, the
program shall cover all counties within subject MSAs or subject
portions of MSAs, as defined by OMB in 1990, except largely rural
counties having a population density of less than 200 persons per
square mile based on the 1990 Census and counties with less than 1% of
the population in the MSA may be excluded provided that at least 50% of
the MSA population is included in the program. This provision does not
preclude the voluntary inclusion of portions of an excluded county.
Non-urbanized islands not connected to the mainland by roads, bridges,
or tunnels may be excluded without regard to population.
* * * * *
(5) Notwithstanding the limitation in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section, in an ozone transport region, states which opt for a program
which only meets the performance standard described in Sec. 51.351(h)
of this part, may apply a geographic bubble covering areas in the state
not otherwise subject to an I/M requirement to achieve emission
reductions from other measures equal to or greater than what would have
been achieved if the low enhanced performance standard were met in the
subject I/M areas. Emissions reductions from non-I/M measures shall not
be counted towards the OTR low enhanced performance standard.
* * * * *
3. Section 51.351 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 51.351 Enhanced I/M performance standards.
* * * * *
(h) Ozone Transport Region Low-Enhanced Performance Standard. An
attainment area, marginal ozone area, or moderate ozone area with a
1980 Census population of less than 200,000 in the urbanized area, in
an ozone transport region, that is required to implement enhanced I/M
under section 184(b)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act, but was not previously
required to or did not in fact implement basic I/M under the Clean Air
Act as enacted prior to 1990 and is not subject to the requirements for
basic I/M programs in this subpart, may select the performance standard
described below in lieu of the standard described in paragraph (f) or
(g) of this section as long as the difference in emission reductions
between the program described in paragraph (g) and this paragraph are
made up with other measures, as provided in Sec. 51.350(b)(5).
Offsetting measures shall not include those otherwise required by the
Clean Air Act in the areas from which credit is bubbled. The program
elements for this
[[Page 54325]]
alternate OTR enhanced I/M performance standard are:
(1) Network type. Centralized testing.
(2) Start date. January 1, 1999.
(3) Test frequency. Annual testing.
(4) Model year coverage. Testing of 1968 and newer vehicles.
(5) Vehicle type coverage. Light duty vehicles, and light duty
trucks, rated up to 8,500 pounds GVWR.
(6) Exhaust emission test type. Remote sensing measurements on
1968-1995 vehicles; on-board diagnostic system checks on 1996 and newer
vehicles.
(7) Emission standards. For remote sensing measurements, a carbon
monoxide standard of 7.5% (with at least two separate readings above
this level to establish a failure).
(8) Emission control device inspections. Visual inspection of the
catalytic converter on 1975 and newer vehicles and visual inspection of
the positive crankcase ventilation valve on 1968-1974 vehicles.
(9) Waiver rate. A 3% waiver rate, as a percentage of failed
vehicles.
(10) Compliance rate. A 96% compliance rate.
(11) Evaluation dates. Enhanced I/M program areas subject to the
provisions of this paragraph shall be shown to obtain the same or lower
VOC and NOX emission levels as the model program described in this
paragraph by January 1, 2000, 2003, 2006, and 2007. Equality of
substituted emission reductions to the benefits of the low enhanced
performance standard must be demonstrated for the same evaluation
dates.
4. Section 51.353 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(5) to read as
follows:
Sec. 51.353 Network type and program evaluation.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(5) Areas that qualify for and choose to implement an OTR low
enhanced I/M program, as established in Sec. 51.351(h), that achieves
less emission reduction credit than the basic performance standard for
one or more pollutants are exempt from the requirements of paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section. The reports required under
Sec. 51.366 of this part shall be sufficient in these areas to satisfy
the requirements of Clean Air Act for program reporting.
* * * * *
5. Section 51.364 is amended by adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to
read as follows:
Sec. 51.364 Enforcement against contractors, stations and inspectors.
* * * * *
(e) Alternative quality assurance procedures or frequencies that
achieve equivalent or better results may be approved by the
Administrator. Statistical process control shall be used whenever
possible to demonstrate the efficacy of alternatives.
(f) Areas that qualify for and choose to implement an OTR low
enhanced I/M program, as established in Sec. 51.351(h) of this part,
that achieves less emission reduction credit than the basic performance
standard for one or more pollutants are not required to meet the
oversight specifications of this section.
6. Section 51.373 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 51.373 Implementation deadlines.
* * * * *
(f) Areas that choose to implement an enhanced I/M program only
meeting the requirements of Sec. 51.351(h) of this subpart shall fully
implement the program no later than July 1, 1999. The availability and
use of this late start date does not relieve the area of the obligation
to meet the requirements of Sec. 51.351(h)(11).
[FR Doc. 95-26202 Filed 10-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26198 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Michigan
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 204 (Monday, October 23, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54325-54326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26198]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MI36-01-6712b; FRL-5294-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Michigan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve a revision to the Michigan State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Eagle-
[[Page 54326]]
Ottawa Leather Company facility located in Ottawa County, Michigan.
This approval makes federally enforceable the State's consent order
requiring control of VOC emissions from Eagle-Ottawa facility. The
EPA's review of the revision shows that the controls are sufficient to
constitute Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for this
facility.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received by November
22, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Toxics and Radiation Branch (AT-
18J), EPA, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604-3590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the direct
final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal
Register. Copies of the request and the EPA's analysis are available
for inspection at the following address: (Please telephone Douglas
Aburano at (312) 353-6960 before visiting the Region 5 office.) EPA,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590.
Authority: 42 U.S. C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: August 28, 1995.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-26198 Filed 10-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26196 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Louisiana; Clean Fuel Fleet Program
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 204 (Monday, October 23, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 54325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26196]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[LA-19-1-6934b; FRL-5310-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Louisiana; Clean Fuel Fleet Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Louisiana for the purpose of
establishing a Clean Fuel Fleet Program. The SIP revision was submitted
by the State to satisfy the Federal mandate, found in the Clean Air Act
(CAA), to implement a program whereby at least a certain percentage of
all newly acquired vehicles of certain on-road fleets in the Baton
Rouge ozone nonattainment area, beginning with model year 1998, shall
be clean fuel vehicles (CFV). In the final rules section of this
Federal Register, the EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a
direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this
as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no adverse
comments. The rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct
final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this
proposed rule, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this
rule. If the EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will
be withdrawn, and all public comments received during the 30-day
comment period set forth below will be addressed in a subsequent final
rule based on this proposed rule. Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by
November 22, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted to Mr. Thomas Diggs,
Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at the EPA Regional Office listed
below. Copies of the documents relevant to this proposed rule are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
following locations. Interested persons wanting to examine these
documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at
least 24 hours before the visiting day.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733;
telephone (214) 665-7214.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality
and Radiation Protection, 7290 Bluebonnet Blvd. Baton Rouge, Louisiana
70810.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: H.D. Brown, Jr., Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), EPA Region 6, telephone (214) 665-7248.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the direct
final action of the same title which is located in the rules section of
this Federal Register.
Dated: September 14, 1995.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-26196 Filed 10-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26192 Extension of Time; Guides for Select Leather and Imitation Leather Products
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 204 (Monday, October 23, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54316-54317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26192]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 24
Extension of Time; Guides for Select Leather and Imitation
Leather Products
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Extension of time for filing public comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (the ``Commission''), as part of
its periodic review of its rules and guides, requested public comment
on September 18, 1995 concerning its proposed Guides for Select Leather
and Imitation Leather Products. The
[[Page 54317]]
comment period was to end on October 18, 1995. In response to a
petition from an industry group, the Commission grants an extension of
the comment period.
DATES: Written comments on the proposed Guides for Select Leather and
Imitation Leather Products will be accepted until November 15, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted to the Office of the
Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, Room H-159, Sixth Street and
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580, telephone number (202)
326-2506. Comments should be identified as ``16 CFR Part 24--Comment--
Proposed Guides for Select Leather and Imitation Leather Products''.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan E. Arthur, Attorney, (214) 767-5503, Federal Trade Commission,
Dallas Regional Office, 100 N. Central Expressway, Suite 500, Dallas,
Texas 75201.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As part of its periodic review of its rules
and guides, the Commission published a notice in the Federal Register
on March 27, 1995, which requested public comment concerning its Guides
for the Luggage and Related Products Industry; Guides for Shoe Content
Labeling and Advertising; and Guides for the Ladies' Handbag Industry.
On September 18, 1995 (60 FR 48056), the Commission rescinded these
three Guides. At the same time, the Commission sought public comment on
proposed Guides for Select Leather and Imitation Leather Products,
which combined relevant portions of the three Guides and the
Commission's Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Misbranding and Deception
as to Leather Content of Waist Belts, 16 CFR Part 405 (``Waist Belt
Rule''), updated certain language used in the Guides, and reflected
other modifications that clarified and streamlined provisions that were
contained in the Waist Belt Rule and the Guides.
The Commission received a petition on October 13, 1995, from the
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America (``FDRA''), a trade
association that represents over 70 retailers, distributors, importers
and manufacturers of footwear and related products. In the petition,
FDRA requested that the Commission extend the comment period until
November 15, 1995. FDRA requests the additional time to engage in a
consultative review process prior to submitting its comments.
In light of the importance of public comments in the Commission's
evaluation of the proposed Guides, the Commission believes that an
extension of the comment period is appropriate. Therefore, in order to
allow all interested persons the opportunity to supply the Commission
with comments concerning the proposed Guides, the Commission grants an
extension of the comment period to November 15, 1995.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 24
Advertising, Distribution, Imitation-leather products, Labeling,
Ladies' handbags, Leather and leather products industry, Luggage and
related products, Shoes, Trade practices, Waist belts.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41-58.
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-26192 Filed 10-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26190 Coordination and Reporting of International Agreements: Determination Not To Publish Certain Agreements
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 204 (Monday, October 23, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54319-54321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26190]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Legal Adviser
22 CFR Part 181
[Public Notice 2269]
Coordination and Reporting of International Agreements:
Determination Not To Publish Certain Agreements
AGENCY: Department of State.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of State is proposing to issue regulations
providing that certain international agreements other than treaties
will not be published in United States Treaties and Other International
Agreements or in the Treaties and Other International Acts Series.
DATES: Consideration will be given only to comments received on or
before December 22, 1995.
ADDRESSES: An original and three copies of comments should be sent to
the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty Affairs, Office of the Legal
Adviser, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen Ghaffarkhan or Wynne Teel, Office of the Legal Adviser, (202)
647-2044.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Until 1994, the Case-Zablocki Act, 1 U.S.C. Sec. 112a, directed the
Department of State to publish in United States Treaties and Other
International Agreements ``all treaties to which the United States is a
party * * * and all international agreements other than treaties to
which the United States is a party.'' See 1 U.S.C. Sec. 112a.
Due to resource constraints, the Department of State has been
unable to publish agreements promptly. The Department's experience,
however, has been that public requests have been received for very few
of the unpublished agreements. In many instances the agreements that
have not been published are printed by private publishers. In other
cases, agreements may not be of interest to the public because they
address narrow, technical subjects.
In view of these considerations, Congress enacted Public Law 102-
236 in 1994, to amend the Case-Zablocki Act by authorizing the
Secretary of State to ``determine that publication of certain
categories of agreements is not required if the following criteria are
met:
(1) Such agreements are not treaties which have been brought into
force for the United States after having received Senate advice and
consent pursuant to section 2(2) of Article II of the Constitution of
the United States;
(2) The public interest in such agreements is insufficient to
justify their publication, because (A) as of the date of enactment of
the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995,
the agreements are no longer in force; (B) the agreements do not create
private rights or duties, or establish standards intended to govern
government action in the treatment of private individuals; (C) in view
of the limited or specialized nature of the public interest in such
agreements, such interest can adequately be satisfied by an alternative
means; or (D) the public disclosure of the text of the agreement would,
in the opinion of the President, be prejudicial to the national
security of the United States; and
(3) Copies of such agreements (other than those in paragraph
(2)(D)), including certified copies where necessary for litigation or
other purposes, will be made available by the Department of State upon
request.''
This statute requires that any such determination be published in
the Federal Register.
Discussion
The Department of State has determined that the categories of
international agreements set forth below meet the criteria of Public
Law 102-236 as set forth above. Non-publication of the following
categories of agreements will substantially eliminate the existing
publication backlog, thus permitting future agreements to be published
in a more timely manner. Moreover, in selecting the following
categories, the Department has focussed on a few areas that have a
large volume of agreements that do not appear to be of general public
interest or are frequently revised and readily available from private
sources. The categories of bilateral agreements that the Department
proposes not to publish and the reasons for selection of those
agreements are as follows:
--Debt Rescheduling Agreements adjust the schedules for payment of
principal and interest and arrearages owed by foreign governments to
the United States Government. Since these agreements concern only
governmental debt, there has been very limited indication of public
interest.
--Textile Agreements are undertaken pursuant to section 204 of the
Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended. Before the entry into force of
the World Trade Organization (``WTO'') Agreement on Textiles and
Clothing on January 1, 1995, the United States limited the export of
textile and apparel products in some instances through bilateral
textile agreements. Now, the United States' arrangements with WTO
member countries are governed by the WTO Agreement on Textiles and
Clothing, leaving approximately ten bilateral textile agreements in
force with countries that are not members of WTO. A few additional
agreements may be concluded with countries that have not joined the
WTO. Copies of these agreements are made available upon entry into
force by the Economic and Business Bureau of the Department of State.
[[Page 54320]]
--Postal Agreements are agency level agreements that govern
arrangements between postal administrations in various technical areas
such as money order service and express mail. There has been no
indication of public interest in these agreements.
--Military Exercise Agreements govern certain practical aspects of
specific exercises conducted by the United States military in foreign
countries, e.g., documentation required for drivers' permits and for
entry of United States personnel into the foreign country, provision of
utilities, and privileges and immunities of United States personnel
during the specified exercises. These agreements are typically of short
duration, are of a limited and specialized nature, create no private
rights or duties and there has been no indication of public interest.
--Military Personnel Exchange Agreements for reciprocal details of
military personnel between governments address such matters as
allocation of responsibilities (salary, insurance, housing) between
governments, length and conditions of the exchange, and limited
privileges available to the exchanged personnel. These agreements are
of a limited and specialized nature, create no private rights or duties
and there has been no indication of public interest.
--Judicial Assistance Agreements provide for the exchange of
information for specified civil or criminal investigations. Because
these agreements address only identified investigations, there has been
no indication of public interest.
--Mapping Agreements are agency level agreements that establish
cooperative arrangements for cartography, including exchanges of maps,
and charts, exchanges of mapping techniques, and training of personnel.
There has been no indication of public interest in these agreements.
Those government agencies that are interested obtain copies directly
from the Department of State or from the agency that concluded the
agreement.
In addition to the above bilateral agreements, the Tariff Schedules
agreed under the GATT and under the World Trade Organization Agreement,
which establish the parties' initial schedule of concessions and
subsequent tariff schedules, are subject to frequent revision and
correction. Thus, publication of the materials by the Department of
State will not supply the public with the current schedules. Moreover,
these materials are readily available and are updated frequently by
GATT/WTO and other sources.
Classified Agreements, including all bilateral or multilateral
agreements that have been given a national security classification
pursuant to Executive Order No. 12356, or its successors will not be
published.
The Department of State also intends not to publish agreements in
the above categories that were signed before publication of this notice
and not previously published in United States Treaties and Other
International Agreements.
Agreements in the above categories (except classified agreements)
will continue to be listed in the Department of State's annual
publication Treaties in Force.
Finally, it should be noted that United States agencies frequently
enter into contracts and similar arrangements with other governments
that the Department of State does not consider to constitute
international agreements under the criteria established in the
Department's regulations at 22 CFR 181.2. These include, for example,
nonbinding political commitments. They also include such arrangements
as bilateral agreements extending grants of $25 million or less by the
Agency for International Development to foreign governments and P.L.
480 agreements under which the United States sells food commodities to
foreign governments. The Department of State does not publish such
arrangements, as it considers them not to be international agreements
within the meaning of the Case Act.
Legal Requirements
This regulation is not expected to have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
regulatory Flexibility Act. In addition, this regulation contains no
new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This regulation
has been reviewed under Executive Order No. 12778 and certified to be
in compliance therewith. Further, this regulation has been reviewed
internally by the Department to ensure consistency with the objectives
of E.O. 12866; in addition, because it involves coordination with other
agencies, OMB has been notified of its promulgation.
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 181
Treaties.
For the reasons set forth above, Part 181 is proposed to be amended
as follows:
1. The authority for Part 181 is revised to read:
Authority: 1 U.S.C. 112a, 112b; 22 U.S.C. 2658; 22 U.S.C. 3312
and Pub. L. No. 103-236.
2. The heading of Part 181 is revised to read:
PART 181--COORDINATION, REPORTING AND PUBLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL
AGREEMENTS
3. The first sentence of Sec. 181.1(a) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 181.1 Purpose and application.
(a) The purpose of this part is to implement the provisions of 1
U.S.C. 112a and 112b, popularly known as the Case-Zablocki Act
(hereinafter ``the Act''), on the reporting to Congress, coordination
with the Secretary of State and publication of international
agreements. * * *
* * * * *
4. A new Sec. 181.8 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 181.8 Publication.
(a) The following categories of international agreements will not
be published in United States Treaties and Other International
Agreements:
(1) Bilateral agreements for the rescheduling of intergovernmental
debt payments;
(2) Bilateral textile agreements concerning the importation of
products containing specified textile fibers done under the
Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended;
(3) Bilateral agreements between postal administrations governing
technical arrangements;
(4) Bilateral agreements that apply to specified military
exercises;
(5) Bilateral military personnel exchange agreements;
(6) Bilateral judicial assistance agreements that apply only to
specified civil or criminal investigations or prosecutions;
(7) Bilateral mapping agreements;
(8) Tariff and other schedules under the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade and under the Agreement for the World Trade
Organization;
(9) Agreements that have been given a national security
classification pursuant to Executive Order No. 12356 or its successors;
and
(b) Agreements on the subjects listed in paragraphs (a) (1) through
(9) of this section that had not been published as of [effective date
of final rule].
(c) Any international agreements in the possession of the
Department of State, other than those in paragraph (a)(9) of this
section, but not published will be made available upon request by the
Department of State.
[[Page 54321]]
Dated: October 17, 1995.
Robert E. Dalton,
Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty Affairs.
[FR Doc. 95-26190 Filed 10-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26173 Meeting on Proposed Rule To Establish Liability for Royalty Due on Federal and Indian Leases and To Establish Responsibility To Pay and Report Royalty and Other Payments
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 204 (Monday, October 23, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 54321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26173]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service
30 CFR Part 211
RIN 1010-AB45
Meeting on Proposed Rule To Establish Liability for Royalty Due
on Federal and Indian Leases and To Establish Responsibility To Pay and
Report Royalty and Other Payments
AGENCY: Minerals Management Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Minerals Management Service (MMS) will hold a public
meeting in Houston, Texas, to discuss a proposed rulemaking regarding
the liability for payments due on Federal and Indian leases and the
responsibility to pay and report royalty and other payments. The
proposal was published in the Federal Register on June 9, 1995, (60 FR
30492). That notice proposes to establish and clarify which persons may
be held liable for unpaid or underpaid royalties, compensatory
royalties, or other payments on Federal and Indian mineral leases. The
proposed rule also would establish who is required to report and pay
royalties on production from leases not in approved Federal or Indian
agreements or leases in approved Federal or Indian agreements
containing 100 percent Federal or Indian tribal leases with the same
lessor, the same royalty rate, and the same royalty distribution. MMS
has extended the comment period for this rule to January 8, 1996 (60 FR
38533, July 27, 1995, and 60 FR 45112, August 30, 1995). The purpose of
the meeting is to allow all interested parties to discuss the proposed
rulemaking. Interested parties are invited to attend and participate at
this meeting.
DATES: A public meeting will be held on Wednesday November 29, and if
necessary Thursday, November 30, 1995, from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in Room 104, first floor, at the
Houston Compliance Division Office, Minerals Management Service, 4141
North Sam Houston Parkway East, Houston, Texas 77032.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David S. Guzy, Chief, Rules and
Procedures Staff, Minerals Management Service, Royalty Management
Program, P.O. Box 25165, MS 3101, Denver, Colorado 80225-0165,
telephone (303) 231-3432, fax number (303) 231-3194, e-Mail
David__G[email protected]. Contact Betty Casey at the Houston Compliance
Division Office at telephone (713) 987-6802, fax (713) 987-6804. Please
contact her prior to November 22 if you will be attending this meeting.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public
without advance registration. Public attendance may be limited to the
space available. Members of the public may make statements during the
meeting, to the extent time permits, and are encouraged to file written
statements for consideration.
Dated: October 17, 1995.
James W. Shaw,
Associate Director for Royalty Management.
[FR Doc. 95-26173 Filed 10-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26167 Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non- Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Agendas for Technical Conferences
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 204 (Monday, October 23, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54317-54319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26167]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 35
[Docket No. RM95-8-000]
Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-
Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Agendas for
Technical Conferences
October 16, 1995.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Proposed rule; agendas for technical conference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
announcing the agendas and times for the Commission technical
conference on ancillary services and for the Commission Staff's
conference on pro forma tariffs. The agenda for the Commission
technical conference on comparability for power pools will be announced
at a later date. The proposed rule was published on April 7, 1995 (60
FR 17662).
DATES: October 26 and 27, 1995.
ADDRESSES: 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard Armstrong, Office of Electric Power Regulation, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE, Washington, DC
10426, (202) 208-0241, facsimile (202) 208-0180 (about Staff conference
on pro forma tariffs).
James Newton, Office of Electric Power Regulation, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426, (202) 208-0578, facsimile (202) 208-0190 (about Commission
conference on ancillary services).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In addition to publishing the full text of
this document in the Federal Register, the Commission also provides all
interested persons an opportunity to inspect or copy the contents of
this document during normal business hours in the Public Reference Room
at 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS) an electronic
bulletin board service, provides access to the text of formal documents
issued by the Commission. CIPS is available at no charge to the user
and may be accessed using a personal computer with a modem by dialing
(800) 856-3920. To access CIPS, set your communications software to
19200, 14400, 12000, 9600, 7200, 4800, 2400, or 1200 bps, full duplex,
no parity, 8 data bits and 1 stop bit. The full text of this document
will be available on CIPS in ASCII and WordPerfect 5.1 format. The
complete text on diskette in WordPerfect format may also be purchased
from the Commission's copy contractor, La Dorn Systems Corporation,
also located in the Public Reference Room at 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
The Commission previously announced (60 FR 43997, August 24, 1995)
that the Commission would be sponsoring a technical conference on
ancillary services, to be held on October 26, 1995, and that the
Commission's Staff would be sponsoring a conference on pro forma
tariffs, to be held on October 27, 1995. Both conferences will be held
at the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Attached to this notice are the tentative agendas and times for
these upcoming technical conferences. Although the Commission and the
Staff reserve the right to make minor revisions to these agendas,
announcing the tentative agendas at this time will help the parties
focus on pertinent issues as early as possible.
The Commission also previously announced that the Commission would
sponsor a technical conference on comparatively for power pools, to be
held on December 5 and 6, 1995. The
[[Page 54318]]
agenda for that conference will be announced at a later date.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
Attachment A.--Ancillary Services of Conference Agenda
888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC., October 26, 1995
9:30-9:35 Introduction--Elizabeth Moler, Chair
9:45-11:00 General Ancillary Services Issues
Panelists will address major ancillary services policy issues,
including jurisdictional and reliability issues. Panelists will have 5
minutes each to make a presentation, followed by a discussion period.
Donald Benjamin, North American Electric Reliability Council
David Owens, Edison Electric Institute
Joseph Jenkins, National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners
Kurt Conger, American Public Power Association
Julie Simon, Electric Generation Association
11:00-12:15 Markets and Pricing Policies
Panelists will address whether competitive markets for ancillary
services do or can exist, under what circumstances market-based pricing
for ancillary services should be permitted, and how to determine the
costs of various ancillary services under traditional ratemaking.
Panelists will have 5 minutes each to make a presentation, followed by
a discussion period.
Steven Walton, Pacificorp
Brady Belk, Large Public Power Council
L. Gayle Mayo, Transmission Access Policy Study Group
Paula G. Rosput, Associated Power Services
James Kenny, Entergy
12:15-1:30 Lunch Break
1:30-2:45 Definitions and Descriptions
Panelists will address whether additional or fewer ancillary services
should be defined in the rule, and whether the NOPR's definitions and
descriptions of the listed ancillary services can be improved.
Panelists will have 5 minutes each to make a presentation, followed by
a discussion period.
Ali Vojdani, Electric Power Research Institute
Joseph L. Welch, Detroit Edison Company
Eric Hirst, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
George Gross, Electric Policy Technical Issues Group
Lester Fink, ECC, Inc.
2:45-4:00 Obligation to Offer and Obligation to Take Ancillary
Services
Panelists will address which entities must offer some or all ancillary
services, and how ancillary services can be provided comparably to the
provider's own use of ancillary services. Panelists will also address
when customers should be required to take some or all ancillary
services or pay for services used but not formally taken. Panelists
will have 5 minutes each to make a presentation, followed by a
discussion period.
Steven Naumann, Commonwealth Edison Company
B. H. Adams, North Carolina Municipal Power Agency #1
Linda Hensley, Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Susan Kelly, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
Stanley Szwed, Centerior
4:00-4:15 Break
4:15-5:15 Bundled or Unbundled Ancillary Services
Panelists will address whether ancillary services should be provided as
part of general transmission service, should be bundled and sold as a
package, or unbundled and sold individually. Panelists will have 5
minutes each to make a presentation, followed by a discussion period.
Barry Green, Ontario Hydro
Robert Hanes, Tejas Power Corporation
John Simpson, Florida Power Corporation
John J. Stauffacher, Coalition for a Competitive Electric Market
Patrick Damiano, Washington Water Power
Attachment B.--Pro Forma Tariff Conference Agenda
888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC., October 27, 1995
8:30-8:45 Introduction and Opening Remarks
8:45-10:00 Characteristics of Network and Point-to-Point Services
Panelists will address whether network and point-to-point services are
approximately defined and described. Panelists will also address
whether non-price terms and conditions can be developed independently
of the pricing method and, in particular, whether a transmission
provider or network customer should be able to make off-system sales
without having to pay an additional transmission rate. Panelists will
have 5 minutes each to make a presentation, followed by a discussion
period.
Martin Blake, Louisville Gas & Electric Company
Kurt Conger, American Public Power Association
Harvey Reiter, Vermont Department of Public Service
Mike Apprill, Utilicorp United, Inc
Robert O'Neil, TDU Systems
10:00-10:15 Break
10:15-11:25 Costs and Prices for Network and Point-to-Point Services
Panelists will address whether the cost allocation methods for network
and point-to-point services are appropriate for the characteristics of
these services. In particular, panelists will address whether it is
appropriate to use different costing methods (1 CP and 12CP) for the
two services. Panelists will have 5 minutes each to make a
presentation, followed by a discussion period.
J. Bouknight, Utility Working Group
Paula Green, Seattle City Light, Washington
Dennis Buckley, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
Tom Blackburn, Utilities For Improved Transition
Sharon Rochford, Cajun Electric Power Cooperative
11:25-12:35 Service Reservation and Curtailment Priorities
Panelists will address who, if anyone, should received priority in
reserving firm and non-firm services. Panelists will also address
whether the proposed curtailment provisions are appropriate. Panelists
will each have 5 minutes to make a presentation, followed by a
discussion period.
David Owens, Edison Electric Institute
Steven Daniel, Alabama Electric Cooperative, et al
Scott Hempling, Arkansas Public Service Commission, et al
Mark Crosswhite, Southern Companies
Scott Blaising, Sacramento Municipal Utility District
12:35-1:45 Lunch Break
1:45-3:00 Standard or Flexible Pro Forma Tariffs
Panelists will address whether the Commission should require a specific
detailed tariff for all
[[Page 54319]]
utilities so as to develop standardized terms and conditions that
facilitate use of a RIN, or should allow flexibility for regional or
individual utility tariffs. Panelists will also discuss the value of
having separate tariffs for network and point-to-point services, versus
having one tariff covering all firm and non-firm services. Panelists
will have 5 minutes each to make a presentation, followed by a
discussion period.
Steven Metague, Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Diane Barney, New York Public Service Commission
John Adragna, NEPOOL Review Committee, et al
Katherine Sasseville, Otter Tail Power Company
Den Herdocia, California Division of Water Resources
3:00-315 Break
3:15-4:30 Other Tariff Issues
Panelists will address issues not covered by prior panels, such as
credit for transmission facilities, credit for generation facilities,
and allocation of interface capacity. Panelists will have 5 minutes
each to make a presentation, followed by a discussion period.
Charles Falcone, American Electric Power Company
Anis Sherali, Southern Engineering
Terry Callender, Coalition for a Competitive Electric Market
Rodger Weaver, PacifiCorp
John McGuire, Transmission Agency of Northern California
FR Doc. 95-26167 Filed 10-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26159 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Truth in Negotiations Act and Related Changes
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 204 (Monday, October 23, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54326-54328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26159]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
48 CFR Parts 204, 215, 216, 232, 233, 235, 239, 246, 252, 253, and
Appendix C to Chapter 2
[DFARS Case 95-D708]
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Truth in
Negotiations Act and Related Changes
AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Director of Defense Procurement is proposing to amend the
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to reflect
recent amendments to the Federal Acquisition Regulation pertaining to
cost or pricing data requirements.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to
the address shown below on or before December 22, 1995 to be considered
in the formulation of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties should submit written comments to:
Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, PDUSD(A&T)DP(DAR), IMD 3D139,
3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telefax number (703)
602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 95-D708 in all correspondence related
to this issue.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Al Winston, Truth in Negotiations Act Team Leader, at (703) 602-
2119. Please cite DFARS Case 95-D708.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-355
(the Act), provides authorities that streamline the acquisition process
and minimize burdensome government-unique requirements. Item I of
Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 90-32, published at 60 FR 48206 on
September 18, 1995, amended the Federal Acquisition Regulation to
implement requirements of the Act pertaining to the submission of cost
or pricing data. This rule proposes amendments to the DFARS to conform
to the FAR amendments published as Item I of FAC 90-32. This rule also
proposes to delete DFARS language pertaining to work measurement
systems, as Section 2201(b) of the Act repealed 10 U.S.C. 2406, the
primary statute covering work measurement systems.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The proposed rule is not expected to have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the rule
primarily consists of conforming DFARS amendments to reflect existing
FAR requirements for submission of cost or pricing data. An initial
regulatory flexibility analysis, therefore, has not been performed.
Comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts
will be considered in accordance with Section 610 of the Act. Such
comments must be submitted separately and cite DFARS Case 95-D708 in
correspondence.
C. The Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed
rule does not impose recordkeeping or information collection
requirements which require the approval of the Office of Management and
Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 204, 215, 216, 232, 233, 235, 239,
246, 252, 253, and Appendix C
Government procurement.
Michele P. Peterson,
Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council.
Therefore, it is proposed that 48 CFR Parts 204, 215, 216, 232,
233, 235, 239, 246, 252, 253, and Appendix C be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Parts 204, 215, 216, 232, 233,
235, 239, 246, 252, 253, and Appendix C continues to read as follows:
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
PART 204--ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
2. Section 204.805 is amended by revising paragraph (5) to read as
follows:
204.805 Disposal of contract files.
* * * * *
(5) Retain pricing review files, containing documents related to
reviews of the contractor's price proposals, subject to cost or pricing
data (see FAR 15.804-2), for six years. It if is impossible to
determine the final payment date in order to measure the six-year
period, retain the files for nine years.
PART 215--CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION
215.801 [Removed]
3. Section 215.801 is removed.
4. Sections 215.804 and 215.804-1 are revised to read as follows:
215.804 Cost or pricing data and information other than cost or
pricing data.
215.804-1 Prohibition of obtaining cost or pricing data.
(b) Standards for exceptions from cost or pricing data
requirements. (1) Adequate price competition. (A) An example of a price
``based on'' adequate price competition is exercise of a priced option
in a contract where adequate price competition existed, if the
contracting officer has determined that the option price is reasonable
under FAR 17.207(d)
(B) Dual or multiple source programs.
(1) In dual or multiple source programs, the determination of
adequate price competition must be made on a case-by-case basis.
Contracting officers must exercise deliberation and thorough review in
making the determination. Even when adequate price competition exists,
in certain cases it may be appropriate to obtain some data to assist in
price analysis.
[[Page 54327]]
(2) Adequate price competition normally exists when--
(i) Price are solicited across a full range of step quantities,
normally including a 0-100 percent split, from at least two offerors
who are individually capable of producing the full quantity; and
(ii) The price reasonableness of all prices awarded in clearly
established on the basis of price analysis (see FAR 15.805-2).
(3) If price reasonableness cannot be determined on the basis of
price analysis, including the results of negotiations, the exception at
FAR 15.804-1(a)(1)(i) from submission of cost or pricing data shall not
apply.
(5) Exceptional cases.
(A) The DoD has exempted the Canadian Commercial Corporation and
its subcontractors from submission of cost or pricing data on all
acquisitions.
(B) The DoD has waived cost or pricing data requirements for
nonprofit organizations (including educational institutions) on cost-
reimbursement-no-fee contracts. However, the contracting officer shall
require--
(1) Submission of information other than cost or pricing data to
the extent necessary to determine reasonableness of the price and cost
realism; and
(2) Cost or pricing data from subcontractors which are not
nonprofit organizations.
215.804-3 [Removed]
5. Section 215.804-3 is removed.
215.804-6 [Amended]
6. Section 215.804-6 is amended by redesignating paragraph
(b)(2)(A) as (b)(1)(A).
215.804-8 [Amended]
7. Section 215.804-8 is amended by removing paragraph (1); by
removing the paragraph (2) designation; and by redesignating paragraphs
(i) and (ii) as (1) and (2) respectively.
8. Section 215.805-5 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)(A) to
read as follows:
215.805-5 Field pricing support.
(a)(1)(A) Contracting officers shall request field pricing reports
for--
(1) Fixed-price proposals exceeding the cost or pricing data
threshold;
(2) Cost-type proposals exceeding the cost or pricing data
threshold from offerors with significant estimating system deficiencies
(see 215.811-70(a) (3) and (c)(2) (i)); or
* * * * *
9. Section 215.805-70 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to
read as follows:
215.805-70 Cost realism analysis.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Do not request submission of cost or pricing data.
215.811-70 [Amended]
10. Section 2125.811-70 is amended by removing the word
``certified'' in paragraphs (b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(ii), and (h); and by
removing the last sentence of paragraph (g)(3)(ii).
215.872 [Removed and Reserved]
11. Section 215.872 is removed and reserved.
215.872-1, 215.872-2, 215.872-3, and 215.872-4 Removed]
12. Sections 215.872-1, 215.872-2, 215.872-3, and 215.872-4 are
removed.
PART 216--TYPES OF CONTRACTS
216.203-4 [Amended]
13. Section 216.203-4 is amended in the first sentence of paragraph
(d)(xvi) by revising the reference ``Far 15.804-3'' to read ``FAR
15.804-1''.
216.203-4-70 [Amended]
14. Section 216.203-4-70 is amended in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) by
revising the reference ``FAR 15.804-3(c)'' to read ``FAR 15.804-
1(b)(2)''; and in paragraphs (a)(2), (b)(4), and (b)(6) by revising the
reference ``FAR 15.804-3'' to read ``FAR 15.804-1''.
PART 232--CONTRACT FINANCING
232.502-1-71 [Amended]
15. Section 232.502-1-71 is amended in paragraph (b)(3) by removing
the word ``certified'' and by revising the reference ``FAR 15.804-2''
to read ``FAR 15.801''.
PART 233--PROTESTS, DISPUTES, AND APPEALS
233.7000 [Amended]
16. Section 233.7000 is amended in paragraph (d) by revising the
reference ``FAR 15.804-2(a)(1)(ii)'' to read ``FAR 15.804-
2(a)(1)(iii)''.
PART 235--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING
17. Section 235.015-71 is amended in paragraph (i)(4) by revising
the entry FAR 52.215-27 to read as follows:
235.015-71 Short form research contract (SFRC).
(i) * * *
(4) * * *
FAR 52.215-27 Termination of Defined Benefit Pension Plans (Applies
if cost or pricing data are required and cost determinations are
subject to FAR subpart 31.2)
* * * * *
PART 239--ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION RESOURCES
18. Section 239.7406 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and the
double asterisked statement at the end of paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
239.7406 Cost or pricing data.
* * * * *
(c) Unless prohibited by FAR 15.804-1, contracting officers shall
obtain certified cost or pricing data when unable to determine that the
prices are reasonable on the basis of price analysis (see FAR 15.805-
2). * * *
(f) * * *
* * * Insert the day, month, and year when price negotiations were
concluded and price agreement was reached or, if applicable, another
data agreed upon between the parties.
* * * * *
PART 246--QUALITY ASSURANCE
246.770-1 [Amended]
19. Section 246.770-1 is amended in paragraph (f)(2)(i) by revising
the reference ``FAR 15.804-3(c)'' to read ``FAR 15.804-1(a)(1)(ii)''.
PART 252--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
252.215-7000 [Removed and Reserved]
20. Section 252.215-7000 is removed and reserved.
252.215-7002 [Amended]
21. Section 252.215-7002 is amended in paragraphs (c)(1) and
(c)(2)(i) by removing the word ``certified''.
252.216-7000 [Amended]
22. Section 252.216-7000 is amended in paragraph (a)(2) by revising
the reference ``FAR 15.804-3'' to read ``FAR 15.804-1''.
252.216-7001 [Amended]
23. Section 252.216-7001 is amended in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) by
revising the reference ``FAR 15.804-3'' to read ``FAR 15.804-1''.
24. Section 252.243-7000 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to
read as follows:
252.243-7000 Engineering change proposals.
* * * * *
(c) When the price** of the engineering change is equal to or
greater than the cost or pricing data threshold, the Contractor shall
submit--
[[Page 54328]]
(1) A completed SF 1411, Contract Pricing Proposal Cover Sheet
(Cost or Pricing Data Required), and
(2) At the time of agreement on price*, or on another date agreed
upon between the parties, a signed Certificate of Current Cost or
Pricing Data.
PART 253--FORMS
25. Section 253.204-70 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(4)(xi)
(A), (B) and (C) to read as follows:
253.204-70 DD Form 350, Individual Contracting Action Report.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
(xi) Block C11, Cost or Pricing Data. * * *
(A) Code Y--Yes--Obtained. Enter code Y when cost or pricing data
were obtained for the contracting action (see FAR 15.804-2).
(B) Code N--No--Not Obtained. Enter code N when cost or pricing
data were not obtained because data were not required (see FAR 15.804-
2) or an exception was granted (see FAR 15.804-1).
(C) Code W--Not Obtained--Waived. Enter Code W when cost or pricing
data were not obtained because the requirement was waived (see FAR
15.804-1(a)(3) and 215.804-1(b)(5)).
* * * * *
Appendix C--Contractor Purchasing System Reviews
26. In Appendix C to Chapter 2, Section C-208.3 is amended in the
second sentence of paragraph (a) by revising the reference ``FAR
15.804-3(b)'' to read ``FAR 15.804-1(b)''.
[FR Doc. 95-26159 Filed 10-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26105 Horses From Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands; Quarantine Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 204 (Monday, October 23, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54315-54316]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26105]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 92
[Docket No. 95-052-1]
Horses From Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands; Quarantine
Requirements
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations regarding the
importation of horses from Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands to
remove the requirement that such horses be quarantined for not less
than 7 days upon arrival in the United States. We believe this action
is warranted because Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands have
reported no cases of Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis (VEE), and it
appears that horses imported from Bermuda and the British Virgin
Islands with less than a 7-day quarantine would not pose a risk of
transmitting VEE to horses in the United States.
DATES: Consideration will be given only to comments received on or
before December 22, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Please send an original and three copies of your comments to
Docket No. 95-052-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,
Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please
state that your comments refer to Docket No. 95-052-1. Comments
received may be inspected at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th
Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and
4:30 p.m, Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to
inspect comments are requested to call ahead on (202) 690-2817 to
facilitate entry into the comment reading room.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Joyce Bowling, Staff Veterinarian,
Import/Export Animals, National Center for Import and Export, VS,
APHIS, Suite 3B08, 4700 River Road Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231,
(301) 734-6479.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in 9 CFR part 92, referred to below as the
regulations, govern the importation into the United States of specified
animals and animal products to prevent the introduction into the United
States of various animal diseases.
The regulations in Sec. 92.308(a)(1) now require horses imported
from all parts of the Western Hemisphere except Argentina, Canada, and
Mexico to be quarantined for not less than 7 days upon arrival in the
United States to prevent the introduction of Venezuelan equine
encephalomyelitis (VEE). VEE is an equine viral disease, transmitted
primarily by mosquitoes and other hematophagous (blood-feeding)
insects, particularly flying insects, that results in a high mortality
rate in animals infected with the disease. Although tests exist for the
presence of VEE in horses, the tests currently available may yield
positive results for horses that have been vaccinated for VEE but that
are not otherwise affected with the disease. The most efficient method
for initial identification of horses that may be infected with VEE is
observation of the horses for clinical signs of the disease. A horse
will usually exhibit signs of VEE within 2-5 days after contracting
[[Page 54316]]
the disease. Seven days is considered the length of time necessary to
ensure that any clinical signs of VEE manifest themselves.
The Governments of Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands have
requested that the U.S. Department of Agriculture consider Bermuda and
the British Virgin Islands free of VEE and exempt horses imported into
the United States from those countries from the 7-day quarantine
requirement. No cases of VEE have ever been reported in Bermuda or the
British Virgin Islands. Furthermore, based on documentation submitted
by the Governments of Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands, it
appears that no horses in these countries are affected with VEE. (This
documentation is available, upon written request, from the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.) Therefore, we are
proposing to amend Sec. 92.308(a)(1) of the regulations to exempt
horses from Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands from the 7-day
quarantine requirement. We are also proposing to amend
Sec. 92.308(a)(1) of the regulations to specify that the purpose of
this 7-day quarantine is to evaluate the horses for signs of VEE.
This proposal would lessen, but not eliminate, restrictions on the
importation of horses from Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands into
the United States, thus making it somewhat easier to move horses from
these countries to the United States. Horses from Bermuda and the
British Virgin Islands would still have to be quarantined at a
designated port until they test negative to an official test for
dourine, glanders, equine piroplasmosis, equine infectious anemia, and
any other tests, inspections, disinfections, and precautionary
treatments that may be required by Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866.
For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its
review process required by Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule would exempt horses imported into the United
States from Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands from the requirement
for a 7-day quarantine upon arrival. This action appears unlikely to
have any significant economic impact on U.S. entities.
The United States had a total population of 2,049,522 horses in
1992. There were 338,346 farms that kept horses. Over 98 percent of
these farms had a market value of less than $500,000, making them small
entities by Small Business Administration standards.
For reasons explained in the Supplementary Information section of
this document, there is a negligible risk of horses from Bermuda and
the British Virgin Islands introducing VEE into the United States. In
addition, we do not expect that this action would result in any
increase in the small number of horses imported into the United States
from Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands. The total horse population
in Bermuda is about 1,000, and only about 10 horses a year are imported
from Bermuda into the United States. There are only 50 to 100 horses in
the British Virgin Islands, and only a few of those are expected to be
imported into the United States, and then only for temporary stays for
exhibitions and racing. Under these circumstances, the imported horses
would have no impact on market prices.
The only parties that would benefit from this reduced restriction
are the potential importers of horses from Bermuda and the British
Virgin Islands and those who use the foreign horses in exhibition and
racing. The benefit to them arises from the reduced number of days
required for quarantine. At present, horses coming from Bermuda and the
British Virgin Islands are required to be quarantined for 7 days, while
horses from countries free of VEE and certain other equine diseases are
quarantined for only about 3 days. Under this proposed rule, horses
from Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands would spend approximately 4
fewer days in quarantine, saving approximately $427 per horse.
Furthermore the reduction in the waiting period may induce more
economic activity.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Executive Order 12778
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State
and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule
will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this
rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before
parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains no information collection or
recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 92
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products,
Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 9 CFR part 92 would be amended as follows:
PART 92--IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN ANIMALS AND POULTRY AND CERTAIN
ANIMAL AND POULTRY PRODUCTS; INSPECTION AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR
CERTAIN MEANS OF CONVEYANCE AND SHIPPING CONTAINERS THEREON
1. The authority citation for part 92 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622; 19 U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 102-105,
111, 114a, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134d, 134f, 135, 136, and 136a; 31
U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, 371.2(d).
2. In Sec. 92.308, paragraph (a)(1) would be revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 92.308 Quarantine requirements.
(a) * * *
(1) Except as provided in Secs. 92.317 and 92.324, and except with
respect to horses from Argentina, Bermuda, and the British Virgin
Islands, horses intended for importation from the Western Hemisphere
shall be quarantined at a port designated in Sec. 92.303 for not less
than 7 days to be evaluated for signs of Venezuelan equine
encephalomyelitis.
* * * * *
Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of October 1995.
Terry L. Medley,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 95-26105 Filed 10-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26083 Milk in the Pacific Northwest and Southwestern Idaho-Eastern Oregon Marketing Areas; Notice of Extension of Time for Filing Briefs
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 204 (Monday, October 23, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 54315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26083]
========================================================================
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. 60, No. 204 / Monday, October 23, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 54315]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Parts 1124 and 1135
[Docket Nos. AO-368-A25, AO-380-A15; DA-95-01]
Milk in the Pacific Northwest and Southwestern Idaho-Eastern
Oregon Marketing Areas; Notice of Extension of Time for Filing Briefs
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Extension of Time for Filing Briefs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice extends the time for filing briefs on the record
of the Pacific Northwest and Southwestern Idaho-Eastern Oregon hearing
held July 11, 1995, through July 12, 1995, in Portland, Oregon. The
Oregon Department of Corrections requested additional time to review
the hearing record and to prepare briefs.
DATES: Briefs are now due on or before October 23, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Briefs (6 copies) should be filed with the Hearing Clerk,
Room 1083, South Building, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
DC 20250.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clifford M. Carman, Order Formulation Branch, USDA/AMS/Dairy Division,
Room 2968, South Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456,
(202) 720-9368.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior document in this proceeding:
Notice of Hearing: Issued June 15, 1995; published June 21, 1995
(60 FR 32282).
Notice is hereby given that the time for filing briefs and proposed
finding and conclusions on the record of the public hearing held July
11, 1995, through July 12, 1995, at Portland, Oregon, with respect to
tentative marketing agreements and to the orders regulating the
handling of milk in the Pacific Northwest and Southwestern Idaho-
Eastern Oregon marketing areas pursuant to the notice of hearing issued
June 15, 1995, and published June 21, 1995 (60 FR 32282), is hereby
extended to October 23, 1995.
The Oregon Department of Corrections requested an extension of time
to file briefs based on the impact certain proposals could have on the
Department of Corrections' milk production and sales program. An
extension of time to file briefs is granted in accordance with the
above-noticed deadlines.
This notice is issued pursuant to the provisions of the
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-
674), and the applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the
formulation of marketing agreements and marketing orders (7 CFR part
900).
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 1124 and 1135
Milk marketing orders.
Dated: October 12, 1995.
Lon Hatamiya,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-26083 Filed 10-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26081 Atlantic Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog Fisheries
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 204 (Monday, October 23, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54330-54331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26081]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 652
[Docket No. 951017252-5252-01; I.D. 101695C]
Atlantic Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog Fisheries
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed 1996 fishing quotas for surf clams and ocean quahogs;
request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues proposed quotas for the Atlantic surf clam and
ocean quahog fisheries for 1996. These quotas are selected from a range
defined as optimum yield (OY) for each fishery. The intent of this
action is to establish allowable harvests of surf clams and ocean
quahogs from the exclusive economic zone in 1996.
DATES: Public comments must be received on or before November 16, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Andrew A. Rosenberg, Regional Director,
Northeast Region, NMFS One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298.
Mark on the outside of the envelope, ``Comments--1996 Surf Clam and
Ocean Quahog Quotas.''
Copies of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's analysis
and recommendations are available from David R. Keifer, Executive
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal
Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19901-6790.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myles Raizin (Resource Policy
Analyst), 508-281-9104.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS, acting on behalf of the Secretary of
Commerce, in consultation with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (Council), is directed under the Fishery Management Plan for
the Atlantic Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog Fisheries (FMP), to specify
quotas for surf clams and ocean quahogs on an annual basis from a range
defined by the FMP as the OY for each fishery. Further, it is the
policy of the Council that the levels selected should allow fishing to
continue at that level for at least 10 years for surf clams and 30
years for ocean quahogs. While staying within these constraints, the
quotas are also to be set at a level that would meet the estimated
annual demand.
For surf clams, the quota must fall within the OY range of 1.85
million bushels (mil. bu.) to 3.4 mil. bu. For ocean quahogs, the quota
must fall within the OY range of 4.00 mil. bu. to 6.00 mil. bu.
During its discussions of the 1996 quota recommendations, the
Council also considered revising the overfishing definitions specified
in the FMP. Overfishing is presently defined for both species in terms
of actual yield levels, that is, overfishing is defined as harvests in
excess of the quota levels specified for a given year. These
overfishing definitions do not incorporate biological considerations to
protect against overfishing of the two species. The Council is now
developing an amendment to the FMP that contains new overfishing
definitions. NMFS will review the proposed quotas for 1996 in the
context of the new proposed overfishing definitions before issuing the
final quotas for 1996.
In proposing these quotas, NMFS considered the available stock
assessments, data reported by harvesters and processors, and other
relevant information concerning exploitable biomass and spawning
biomass, fishing mortality rates, stock recruitment, projected effort
and catches, and areas closed to fishing. This information was
presented in a written report, ``Overview of the Surf Clam and Ocean
Quahog Fisheries and Quota Recommendations for 1996,'' prepared by the
Council. The proposed quotas for the 1996 Atlantic surf clam and ocean
quahog fisheries are shown below. The surf clam quota would be
unchanged from 1995, and the ocean quahog quota would be reduced by
approximately 9 percent.
NMFS notes that the Council used the 1992 stock abundance survey,
as described in the 1993 stock assessment report, in setting the 1996
quotas. The most recent stock abundance survey, completed in 1994, was
considered to be a statistical anomaly as described in the final
specifications for these species in 1995 (60 FR 25853), and was set
aside until a more thorough review of the data was possible. As this
review is not completed, NMFS still considers the 1992 stock abundance
survey to be the best scientific information available. This data was
used in conjunction with the updated information stated above.
Proposed 1996 Surf Clam/Ocean Quahog Quotas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 final 1996 final
Fishery quotas (mil. quotas (mil.
bu) hL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surf clam............................... 2.565 1.362
Ocean quahog............................ 4.450 2.363
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surf Clams
The Council staff originally proposed a surf clam quota of 2.843
mil. bu., based on the assumption that Georges Bank, presently closed
to the fishery due to the presence of paralytic shellfish poisoning
toxin (PSP), would reopen. The staff assumed that the risks from PSP
would be eliminated by implementation of a dockside test for the toxin
and that half of the surf clam resource on Georges Bank would be
available over the next 10 years. As a result of this assumption, the
staff recommended an increase in quota of 10 percent from the 1995
level of 2.565 mil. bu.
The staff recommendation was presented to the Council's Science and
Statistical Committee (SSC), Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog Committee
(Committee), and Industry Advisors at a meeting in July, 1995. These
bodies did not accept the staff assumption concerning the reopening of
Georges Bank. At the July meeting, the SSC was the only body to make an
alternative quota recommendation; the SSC recommended that the 1996
quota should remain unchanged from 1995 (2.565 mil. bu.).
In August, 1995, the Council met as a ``Committee of the Whole'' to
consider the SSC recommendation and revised the staff recommendation.
Subsequent to its original proposal, the staff reviewed two projections
based on the most recent stock assessment, both of which assumed that
there would be no Georges Bank harvest. The first projection estimated
the number of years that the quota could remain at the 1995 level of
2.565 mil. bu. This projection showed a median of 7 supply years, with
an 80% confidence level that the supply years would fall into a range
between 5 and 10 years. The second projection calculated that a
[[Page 54331]]
quota level of 2.473 mil. bu. was the median estimate of a 10-year
supply. The staff recommended basing the quota on the second, more
conservative, projection. The ``Committee of the Whole'' adopted the
SSC recommendation for a 1996 quota of 2.565 mil. bu., rather than the
staff recommendation, because uncertainties in the projections
indicated that there was no compelling reason for a quota reduction at
this time. The Committee of the Whole's recommendation was adopted by
the Council at its meeting in September, 1995.
Ocean Quahogs
The Council staff proposed an ocean quahog quota of 4.45 mil. bu.,
a reduction of 9 percent from 1995. This reduction is based on a
recalculation by Council staff of the harvest level that could be
maintained over a 30-year period. This recommendation assumes that all
of the Georges Bank biomass will become available to the fishery over
the course of the 30-year harvest period. In making this assumption,
however, the Council stated that additional quota reductions would be
necessary in the future if demonstrable progress is not made toward a
reopening of Georges Bank in the near future.
The staff recommendation was adopted by the SSC in July, 1995, by
the Committee of the Whole in August, 1995, and by the Council in
September, 1995.
Classification
This action is authorized by 50 CFR Part 652 and is exempt from
review under E.O. 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: October 17, 1995.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-26081 Filed 10-17-95; 3:32 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-W
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26080 Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; Public Scoping Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 204 (Monday, October 23, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54329-54330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26080]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 646
[I.D. 101095B]
Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; Public Scoping
Meeting
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Public scoping meetings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) is
holding two public scoping meetings to solicit comments on the sale of
fish (all species) caught under the recreational bag limits established
by the Council's fishery management plans (FMPs) and on the issue of
recreational catch and the commercial bycatch of wreckfish under the
Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South
Atlantic (Snapper-Grouper FMP).
DATES: The public scoping meetings are scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m.
on Monday, October 23, 1995, in Wilmington, NC 28401, and will end when
all business is completed. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional
information on the scoping meetings.
ADDRESSES: The public scoping meetings will be held in conjunction with
the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council public meetings to be
held October 22-27, 1995, at the Coast Line Inn, 503 Nutt Street,
Wilmington, NC 28401; telephone: (800) 763-2800.
Requests for copies of public scoping documents should be sent to
the Council at the following address: South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council, One Southpark Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407-4699.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert K. Mahood, Council Executive
Director; telephone: (803) 571-4366; fax: (803) 769-4520.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At the first scoping meeting, comments will
be solicited on the sale of fish caught under the recreational bag
limits for all species as established by the Council's FMPs. The
Council has considered this issue on numerous occasions over the past
several years, and both commercial and recreational fishermen have
expressed concern about this matter. Currently, all of the Council's
FMPs allow for the sale of fish taken in a legal bag limit. The issue
regarding the sale of fish caught under bag limits involves several
considerations including: (1) The definitions of recreational and
commercial fishermen, (2) the ethical question of a ``recreational''
fisherman selling his catch, and (3) the impacts of selling fish caught
under an FMP-established bag limit on an FMP-established commercial
quota for the same species. The Council will consider prohibiting the
sale of fish caught by recreational anglers. The Council is inviting,
and will consider, the views of recreational and commercial fishermen
and other interested persons on this matter prior to taking any formal
and final action. The Council is particularly interested in hearing
about the possible impacts of prohibiting the sale of recreationally-
caught fish.
At the second scoping meeting, which will follow the first meeting,
comments will be solicited on wreckfish caught by recreational
fishermen and on the commercial bycatch of wreckfish outside of the
Blake Plateau. Amendments 3 and 4 to the Snapper Grouper FMP
established a management program for wreckfish in the South Atlantic
region. A regulatory adjustment framework measure was also included in
the Snapper-Grouper FMP allowing the Council to set total allowable
catch each year and at the same time consider other possible management
options. Amendment 5 to the Snapper Grouper FMP established an
individual transferrable quota (ITQ) system in the wreckfish fishery
that allows only ITQ shareholders to land and sell wreckfish, and
allows only permitted dealers to handle wreckfish and to buy wreckfish
from ITQ shareholders.
Recent reports have indicated that wreckfish are being caught by
recreational fishermen fishing primarily for red grouper off Key West,
FL, and that commercial snapper-grouper fishermen, especially off south
Florida, are observing an occasional wreckfish bycatch in their
fishery. These reports do not indicate the catch frequency or poundage,
catch disposition, nor the number of fishermen targeting wreckfish.
The Council is considering the following management options for
regulating this fishery: (1) No action (i.e., continue to prohibit the
taking or landing of wreckfish in the South Atlantic region except by
ITQ shareholders; (2) set a recreational bag limit of one or two fish
per fisherman per trip; (3) set a recreational bag limit of one or two
fish per boat per trip; (4) set a recreational bag limit of one or two
fish per boat per day; (5) set an undetermined recreational bag limit;
(6) set a bag limit of one or two fish per boat per trip for commercial
fishermen in the South Atlantic region who are not wreckfish ITQ
shareholders; (7) set a bag limit of one or two fish per boat per day
for commercial fishermen in the South Atlantic region who are not
wreckfish ITQ shareholders; (8) set a bag limit of one or two fish per
boat per trip for commercial fishermen in the south Florida area who
are not wreckfish ITQ shareholders; (9) set a bag limit of one to two
fish per boat per day for commercial fishermen in the south Florida
area who are not wreckfish ITQ shareholders; (10) allow for an
undetermined commercial bag limit in the South Atlantic region; and
(11) allow for an undetermined commercial bag limit only in the South
Florida area.
Written public comments on the subjects of the scoping meetings, as
well as any Council scoping documents made available to the public, may
be submitted to the Council from the time of the scoping meetings until
such time as the Council has prepared appropriate
[[Page 54330]]
and related public hearing documents that are available for public
comment. For copies of the public scoping documents, see ADDRESSES.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with
disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office by October 20,
1995 (see ADDRESSES).
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: October 17, 1995.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-26080 Filed 10-17-95; 3:32 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26050 Pressure Testing Older Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipelines
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 204 (Monday, October 23, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54328-54329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26050]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Part 195
[Docket No. PS-121; Amdt. 195-51B]
RIN 2137-AB 46
Pressure Testing Older Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide
Pipelines
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; Extension of time for
compliance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to extend the time for compliance with
the requirements to plan and schedule pressure testing of older
hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines. Plans are now required
by December 7, 1995. This extension of time for compliance is in
response to a petition from the American Petroleum Institute (API) to
apply a risk-based alternative to the required pressure testing of
older pipelines. The extension of time will allow RSPA time to consider
the petition.
DATES: The deadline that establishes regulations for planning and
scheduling pressure testing is proposed to be extended to December 7,
1996. All other deadlines remain intact. Comments on this notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) must be received on or before November 22,
1995.
ADDRESSES: Written comments must be submitted in duplicate and mailed
or hand-delivered to the Dockets Unit, room 8421, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Identify the docket and
notice numbers stated in the heading of this notice. All comments and
materials cited in this document will be available for inspection and
copying in room 8421 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. each business day.
Non-federal employee visitors are admitted to the DOT headquarters
building through the southwest quadrant at Seventh and E Streets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Israni, (202) 366-4571, regarding
the subject matter of this document, or the Dockets Unit (202) 366-
4453, for copies of this document or other information in the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated June 23, 1995, API
submitted a risk-based alternative to the pressure testing rule and
requested that RSPA delay implementation of the rule until the API
proposal has been given full consideration. A copy of the API proposal
is available in the docket. API urged that the rule on pressure testing
older hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines presents an
opportunity to apply a risk-based approach to pressure testing, and
proposed a risk-based alternative to the final rule issued on June 7,
1994. API argued that its proposal would allow operators to focus
resources and effect a greater reduction in the overall risk from
pipeline accidents. API has requested a high priority be placed on
reviewing their proposal because of the compliance dates for the
pressure testing rule. In addition, RSPA has received a few phone calls
and requests of waiver of compliance with the June 7, 1994 final rule.
Because RSPA has been working actively with the pipeline industry
to develop a risk management framework for pipeline regulations, RSPA
wants to evaluate the API proposal carefully. RSPA realizes that
substantial planning is required before pressure testing older
pipelines. Operators will need time to prepare pipeline systems for
testing and to arrange for personnel and equipment to conduct the
tests. System changes and actual testing must be coordinated with
operations to minimize the impact on refineries, distributors, and
users of the transported products. Also, operators need time to assure
that testing is done safely, with the least environmental risk, and in
accordance with applicable Federal and State regulations.
Thus, RSPA is proposing to extend the time for compliance to allow
evaluation of the API petition. Although the comment period on this
proposed extension is limited to thirty days, RSPA recognizes that a
final rule cannot be published well in advance of the current
compliance date of December 7, 1995. Thus, in order to prevent imposing
an undue burden on operators of pipelines which would have to prepare
the plans anyway because of late issuance of the final rule, RSPA
announces that it will not enforce the December 7, 1995, compliance
date prior to a final rule on this notice. RSPA is issuing this NPRM
with less than 60 days notice because of the limited time available
between this date and December 7, 1995.
Impact Assessment
This notice proposes to extend the time for compliance of the final
rule establishing regulations for pressure testing older hazardous
liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines published on June 7, 1994, for one
year, so there is no additional cost to comply with these rules. This
proposed rule is considered to be non-significant under Executive Order
12286, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034;
February 26, 1979). This extension does not warrant preparation of a
Regulatory Evaluation. Also, based on the facts available concerning
the impact of this proposed rule, I certify under section 606 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act that it does not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities. This action has been
analyzed under the criteria of Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685) and
found not to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
[[Page 54329]]
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195
Anhydrous ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Petroleum, Pipeline safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, RSPA proposes to amend part 195
of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 195--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 195 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109; and 49 CFR
1.53.
2. Section 195.302 (c)(1) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 195.302 General requirements.
* * * * *
(c) Except for onshore pipelines that transport HVL, the following
compliance deadlines apply to pipelines under paragraphs (b)(1) and
(b)(2)(i) of this section that have not been pressure tested under this
subpart:
(1) Before December 7, 1996, for each pipeline each operator
shall--
(i) Plan and schedule testing according to this paragraph; or
(ii) Establish the pipeline's maximum operating pressure under
Sec. 195.406(a)(5).
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, D.C. on October 17, 1995.
Richard B. Felder,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 95-26050 Filed 10-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.