issue-1995-12-13•Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-12-13
Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-12-13
issue-1995-12-13Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-12-13Proposed 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. 95-30400 Implementation of the Shore Protection Act of 1988
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 64001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30400]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 151
[CGD 89-014]
RIN 2115-AD23
Implementation of the Shore Protection Act of 1988
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In May 1989, the Coast Guard began rulemaking to incorporate
into regulation certain elements of the Shore Protection Act. Its
objective was to help prevent trash, medical debris, and other
unsightly and potentially harmful materials from being deposited into
the coastal waters of the United States as a result of sloppy waste-
handling procedures. Because no additional regulations are needed, the
Coast Guard is discontinuing rulemaking under docket number 89-014.
DATES: This discontinuance is effective on December 13, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant Junior Grade L.V. Kabler, Project Manager, Office of Marine
Safety, Security, and Environmental Protection (G-MRO-1), (202) 267-
0423.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a Federal Register document published May
24, 1989, (54 FR 22546) the Coast Guard contemplated, at some point in
the future, establishing procedures for a regular permit and for
suspension-and-revocation proceedings under the Shore Protection Act
(33 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.). Because the Coast Guard has determined that
the current procedures implementing the Act are satisfactory, it has
decided to continue issuing conditional permits to vessels carrying
waste in the coastal waters of the United States and to discontinue any
further rulemaking under docket number 89-014. It will, at some point
in the future, re-examine the necessity of further rulemaking and may,
at that point, initiate a new rulemaking under a new docket number.
Dated: December 6, 1995.
Joseph J. Angelo,
Director for Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-30400 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30380 New England Fishery Management Council; Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64014-64015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30380]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 649, 650, and 651
[I.D. 112995F]
New England Fishery Management Council; Meeting
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Public meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold
a 2-day meeting to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in
the exclusive economic zone.
DATES: The meeting will begin on Wednesday, December 13, 1995, at 10
a.m. and on Thursday, December 14 at 8:30 a.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the King's Grant Inn, Route 128
and Trask Lane, Danvers, MA 01906-1097; telephone: (617) 231-0422.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas G. Marshall, Executive
Director, New England Fishery Management Council, (617) 231-0422.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
December 13, 1995
The December 13, 1995, session will include reports from the
Council's Gear Conflict, Monkfish, and Dogfish Committees. The gear
conflict discussion will focus on reviewing and possibly approving a
draft plan amendment document for public hearing purposes that contains
a framework adjustment procedure to reduce gear conflicts. The intent
is to amend several fishery management plans for this purpose. The
Monkfish Committee will update the Council on possible monkfish total
allowable catches, limited access quotas, and limited access
qualification criteria within the context of alternatives already
developed as part of a draft fishery management plan. The Dogfish
Committee will provide background information on the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council's decision to temporarily delay development
of the joint plan.
During the afternoon session of the meeting, the Marine Mammal
Committee will report on its efforts to develop time/area closures to
reduce the bycatch of harbor porpoise in the Gulf of Maine sink gillnet
fishery. The Sea Scallop Committee will discuss the development of
Amendment 5 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Sea Scallop
Fishery (Scallop FMP), a program to allow vessels to consolidate their
days at sea. The Council may also approve draft Amendment 6 to the
Scallop FMP for public hearing purposes. The amendment proposes to
establish a temporary experimental use area 10 miles south of Martha's
Vineyard for sea scallop research, enhancement, and aquaculture.
Abbreviated Rulemaking--Atlantic Sea Scallops
At the recommendation of its Scallop Committee, the Council will
consider initial action on Framework Adjustment 7 to the Scallop FMP
under the framework for abbreviated rulemaking procedure contained in
50 CFR 650.40. The Council proposes to extend the current rule
specifying a maximum crew size of seven until a plan amendment allows
the consolidation of days at sea now allocated to individual scallop
vessels, or until the Council changes the crew size through other
action.
December 14, 1995
The December 14, 1995, session will begin with an update on the
future direction of lobster management. The Northeast Multispecies
(Groundfish) Committee will follow with a report on
[[Page 64015]]
actions to date to finalize proposed Amendment 7 to the Fishery
Management Plan for the Northeast Multispecies Fishery (Multispecies
FMP).
Abbreviated Rulemaking Action--Northeast Multispecies
The Council will consider action on Framework Adjustment 13 to the
Multispecies FMP under the framework for abbreviated rulemaking
procedure contained in 50 CFR 651.40. The Council proposes to require
exempted fishery status for vessels fishing outside of their allocated
groundfish or sea scallop days at sea. The Council will consider two
additional actions under the framework for abbreviated rulemaking
procedure: Initial action on Framework Adjustment 14 to reduce the
bycatch of harbor porpoise in the Gulf of Maine sink gillnet fishery
through time/area closures in the mid-coast and southern New England
regions during the spring, and initial action on Framework Adjustment
15 in which the Council proposes to require that all vessels take a 20-
day block of time off from harvesting groundfish during the March
through May spawning period.
The Council will consider public comments at a minimum of two
Council meetings prior to making any final recommendations to the
Director, Northeast Region, NMFS (Regional Director), under the
provisions for abbreviated rulemaking cited above. If the Regional
Director concurs with the measures proposed by the Council, he will
publish them as a final rule in the Federal Register.
The Council will address any other outstanding business at the
conclusion of the agenda items described above.
Special Accommodations
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities.
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids
should be directed to Douglas G. Marshall (see ADDRESSES) at least 5
days prior to the meeting date.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: December 8, 1995
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-30380 Filed 12-8-95; 2:17 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30376 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Stability and Control of Medium and Heavy Vehicles During Braking
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64010-64014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30376]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 92-29; Notice 8]
RIN 2127-AG06
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Stability and Control of
Medium and Heavy Vehicles During Braking
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document responds to petitions for reconsideration of a
March 1995 final rule amending Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, to
require, among other things, the installation of antilock brake systems
(ABS) on medium and heavy vehicles and the installation of external ABS
malfunction indicator lamps on trailers and trailer converter dollies.
This document proposes to amend the Standard to specify the location,
color, activation protocol, and intensity of the lamps.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted to: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
Docket hours are 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Mr. George
Soodoo, Office of Crash Avoidance, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590 (202)
366-5892. FAX (202) 366-4329.
For legal issues: Mr. Marvin L. Shaw, NCC-20, Rulemaking Division,
Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590 (202)
366-2992.
I. Background
On March 10, 1995, NHTSA published a final rule amending Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121 to require medium and
heavy vehicles to be equipped with an antilock brake system (ABS) (60
FR 13216). The final rule also required that these vehicles be equipped
with lamps to alert their drivers of ABS malfunctions. Trailers
produced during an interim eight-year period are required to be
[[Page 64011]]
equipped with an external ABS malfunction indicator lamp. That period
begins on March 1, 1998, the date on which ABS installation on trailers
must also begin. The lamp must ``be visible within the driver's forward
field of view through the rearview mirrors.'' (60 FR 13244-13246).
Truck tractors and other towing trucks will be required to be equipped
with two separate in-cab lamps: one indicating malfunctions in the ABS
of the towing truck and the other indicating malfunctions in the ABS of
any towed trailer(s) or dolly(ies). All other powered heavy vehicles
will be required to be equipped with a single in-cab lamp to indicate
ABS malfunctions.
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration from the American
Trucking Associations (ATA), the American Automobile Manufacturers
Association (AAMA), the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA),
the Heavy Duty Brake Manufacturers Council (HDBC), the United Parcel
Service (UPS), vehicle manufacturers, including Chrysler, Navistar, AM
General, and brake system suppliers, including Midland-Grau, Jenflo,
AlliedSignal, Rockwell WABCO, Rockwell International, Kelsey-Hayes, and
Ferodo America.
The petitioners generally agreed with NHTSA's decision to require
all heavy vehicles to be equipped with ABS and to comply with the
stopping distance requirements, and to require truck tractors to comply
with the braking-in-a-curve performance test requirements.
Nevertheless, they requested modifications of various aspects of those
rules.
This document responds to those petitioners which requested changes
in the requirements concerning ABS malfunctions indicators. The agency
is responding to other requests for reconsideration in another document
published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
Midland-Grau and TTMA petitioned NHTSA to delete the requirement
that the external malfunction indicator lamp on a trailer be visible
from the driver's seating position ``through the rearview mirrors.''
(see S5.2.3.3). Midland-Grau stated that since truck tractor
manufacturers cannot control where the external lamp would be located,
requiring tractor manufacturers to ensure that the lamp is visible from
the cab of the truck tractor is unreasonable. TTMA stated that since
trailer manufacturers cannot control where mirrors are located on
tractors, requiring the ABS malfunction lamp on dollies and trailers to
be visible ``through the rearview mirrors'' is not appropriate. That
organization also stated that there is no good, practical location for
such a lamp on a dolly.
AAMA and TTMA requested that if the agency retains the requirement
for an external ABS malfunction indicator lamp on the trailer,1
then the agency should specify the location, color and intensity of the
lamp in Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated
equipment.
1 ATA and UPS petitioned the agency to delete the
requirements for an external trailer mounted malfunction lamp. They
claimed that the external malfunction lamp will lead to less safety
because drivers will be looking in their mirrors during braking to
see whether the ABS lamp is functioning, instead of looking at
traffic conditions ahead of their vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Agency Response and Proposal
In a separate notice published elsewhere in today's Federal
Register, NHTSA has denied requests by several petitioners to rescind
the requirement for external ABS malfunction lamps on trailers and
dollies. However, in response to the petitions from Midland-Grau and
TTMA, NHTSA has decided to propose requirements concerning the
location, color, activation protocol and intensity of the external ABS
malfunctions lamps on trailers and dollies.
A. Location
NHTSA is proposing to specify the location for the external ABS
malfunction indicator lamp on trailers and dollies. The proposed
location for trailers is similar to the one proposed by the agency when
it was considering requiring a low air pressure warning lamp on
trailers. (55 FR 4453, February 8, 1990) For most trailers, the ABS
malfunction indicator lamp would be required to be located on the left
side of each trailer, as close to the front as practicable, and at a
height as close as practicable to 96 inches above the road surface. (If
it is impracticable to mount the indicator lamp on the left side of the
trailer at a height of 60 inches or more above the road surface, the
lamp shall be mounted on a permanent structure on the front face of the
trailer as far leftward as practicable and at a height as close as
practicable to 96 inches above the road surface). For dollies, the
indicator lamp would be required on a permanent structure of the dolly
and to be visible to a person standing on the road surface near the
location of the indicator.
Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors, specifies requirements for the
performance and location of rearview mirrors, but it does not provide a
requirement for the height of the mirror relative to the ground. A
location requirement would have given some reference for locating the
ABS malfunction indicator lamp on the trailer. However, S8.1 of
Standard No. 111 specifies that ``the mirrors shall be located so as to
provide the driver a view to the rear along both sides of the vehicle,
* * * '' This requirement should ensure that the driver would have a
view of an indicator lamp required to be mounted on the left side of
the trailer.
NHTSA is basing its proposal regarding the height of the trailer
malfunction indicator lamp on a report published by the University of
Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI), ``The Influence of
Truck Driver Eye Position on the Effectiveness of Retroreflective
Traffic Signs,'' by Sivak, Flannagan, and Gellatly, September 1991.
This report includes data on driver eye heights for 188 heavy trucks.
The mean driver eye height above the ground for heavy trucks in that
study is 2.33 meters or 91.74 inches. Therefore, the location of a side
rearview mirror for such vehicles is likely to be slightly above or
below this mean driver eye height to ensure that the average driver
would be provided ``a view to the rear along both sides of the
vehicle,'' as required in S8.1 of Standard No. 111.
NHTSA believes that if the malfunction indicator lamp is located on
the left side of the trailer, as far forward as practicable and at a
height as close as practicable to 96 inches above the road surface, it
would coincide with the mean driver eye height, based on the data from
the UMTRI report. In that location, the indicator lamp would be likely
to be visible to the driver.
NHTSA recognizes that on some trailers, such as flatbed and
platform trailers, there may be no side structure that is sufficiently
high to locate the ABS malfunction lamp at or near a height of 96
inches. If it is impracticable to mount the indicator lamp on the left
side of the trailer at a height of 60 inches or more above the road
surface, then locating the lamp on the front face of the trailer would
be a more appropriate lamp location for such a vehicle. To increase the
likelihood of a lamp on the front face of the trailer being visible
through the side rearview mirror, the lamp would be required to be
positioned as far leftward as practicable and at a height as close as
practicable to 96 inches above the road surface.
In response to notices issued on the ABS rulemaking, TTMA and other
[[Page 64012]]
commenters stated that requiring a lamp to be visible through the
rearview mirrors would make it necessary for such a lamp to protrude
from the dolly structure, thereby making it susceptible to damage. They
recommended that a dolly be required to indicate an ABS malfunction
only at the ECU mounted on the dolly's frame, on the presumption that
it would be visible during a walk-around inspection.
NHTSA concludes that the proposed requirement for specifying the
location for an ABS malfunction lamp on a dolly must be different from
the requirement proposed for trailers. The agency agrees with TTMA's
comment that there is ``no good, practical location for an ABS
malfunction lamp on a dolly,'' from which the lamp could be viewed by a
driver looking through the side rearview mirrors.
Based on the available information, NHTSA proposes that the ABS
malfunction lamp on dollies be located on a permanent structure of the
dolly so that it would be visible, with or without a trailer attached
to the dolly, to a person in a standing position during a walk-around
inspection. By permanent structure, the agency means a fixed portion of
the vehicle that is inherently part of the dolly as opposed to
something that is easily removed. To accomplish this goal, the proposed
requirement is specified in objective terms by stating that the lamp
must be located on a permanent structure of the dolly and positioned at
a height of not less than 15 inches above the road surface. In
addition, the malfunction lamp would have to be visible when viewed by
a person standing erect and located no more than 10 feet from the
dolly. The proposed height of not less than 15 inches for the location
of the dolly ABS malfunction lamp coincides with the lower height limit
for side marker lamps on the lower edge of a trailer, as specified in
Standard 108. Given the differences in dolly configurations and sizes,
that proposed minimum lamp height is expected to provide dolly
manufacturers with the flexibility to locate the ABS lamp in a
protected location. The agency expects that dolly manufacturers would
locate the lamp below the fifth-wheel to reduce the potential for
damage to the lamp when the dolly is being connected to a trailer.
NHTSA believes that locating the malfunction lamp on the ECU of the
ABS would decrease the ability of the driver or inspectors to see the
lamp. The ECU is typically placed in a protected location where it
would not be easily damaged. Such a location would not be conspicuous
enough to ensure that the ECU, and hence the malfunction lamp, is
easily seen during a walk-around inspection of the towed vehicle.
B. Color
TTMA requested that NHTSA require the use of a green lamp for the
external ABS malfunction lamp on the trailer and the dolly, and that
the lamp be lit continuously whenever the ECU is powered, but be
extinguished when there is a malfunction.
Standard No. 101, Controls and displays, currently requires that
in-vehicle ABS malfunction lamps be yellow. This color requirement has
been harmonized with the vehicle standards of other countries. NHTSA
and regulatory agencies in other countries have historically used a red
lamp to indicate a critical system failure and a yellow lamp to
indicate a non-critical malfunction. The International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE)
recently harmonized European braking requirements with American
requirements, agreeing to specify red to indicate brake failure and
yellow to indicate ABS malfunction. NHTSA recognizes that these color
requirements are applicable to instrument panel lamps and do not
address ABS malfunction indicator lamps on the exterior of a vehicle.
However, the desirability of having a uniform protocol in this regard
is clear. The agency concludes that the same requirements should be
applied to external ABS malfunction lamps since they perform the same
function as in- vehicle ABS malfunction lamps.
NHTSA notes that Table I of Standard 108 includes a requirement for
two amber clearance lamps at the front of a trailer and two red
clearance lamps at the rear of a trailer. In addition, Standard No. 108
references the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended
Practice J592e (July 1972), Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification
Lamps. A recent update of this Recommended Practice (SAE J592 JUN92)
states in Section 5.1.7 that ``the color of light from front clearance
lamps * * * shall be yellow.'' The agency believes that the color of
external ABS malfunction lamps should be the same as that used for
clearance lamps.
Based on these considerations, NHTSA concludes that the use of a
green lamp on the exterior of the trailer for indicating a trailer ABS
malfunction would violate the already established convention for ABS
malfunction lamps and, therefore, could create confusion among drivers.
However, there would be no prohibition against supplementing the
required yellow external malfunction lamp on a trailer with a green
lamp on the ECU to indicate the status of the trailer ABS. The
supplemental lamp would not have to conform to any of the color or
protocol requirements specified for the external ABS malfunction lamp.
C. Lamp Protocol
TTMA requested a change in the lamp protocol, which would allow the
lamp to be lit continuously when the ABS is functioning properly and to
be extinguished when there is a malfunction in the ABS. NHTSA has
addressed this issue in detail in previous Federal Register notices and
in the final rule on heavy vehicle ABS rulemaking. In the final rule,
the agency decided to require that the ABS malfunction lamp be lit when
a malfunction exists and that it not be lit when the antilock system is
functioning properly.
Under the requirement for an external ABS malfunction indicator in
S5.2.3.3 of Standard 121, NHTSA requires that the trailer ABS
malfunction lamp be lit during the check-of-lamp function only when the
vehicle is stationary and power is first supplied to the antilock
system. This allows the ABS lamp on a trailer that is moving to undergo
the check of lamp function, without the lamp cycling on and off
whenever the brakes are applied. This requirement will eliminate any
potential distractions for the driver or for drivers of other vehicles
nearby, which might be created by the ABS lamp cycling on and off with
every brake application. The agency emphasizes that in the event of a
malfunction in the trailer antilock system, the malfunction indicator
lamp would be lit whenever power is supplied to the trailer antilock
system, regardless of whether the vehicle is stationary or moving.
Accordingly, the agency has decided to deny TTMA's request for a change
in the ABS malfunction lamp protocol and proposes no change to the
protocol included in the ABS final rule.
D. Intensity and Photometric Requirements
AAMA and TTMA petitioned the agency to require that the external
ABS malfunction lamp have the same photometric requirements as those
specified in Standard No. 108. Photometric values specify the amount of
light emitted by a lamp, when measured from a specified distance.
NHTSA agrees with the petitioners' recommendation, and proposes
that the ABS malfunction lamps meet the requirements specified by the
SAE Recommended Practice J592 JUN92 for
[[Page 64013]]
the clearance lamps. Those requirements are referenced in Standard No.
108.
The photometric performance requirements in SAE J592 JUN92 for the
luminous intensity of side marker lamps specify minimum intensity
values at test points of 45 degrees along a horizontal axis and 10
degrees along a vertical axis, when measured from a lamp distance of at
least three meters. In addition, the agency proposes that the lamp be
mounted on the trailer in such a manner that its beam is directed
toward the front of the trailer and rotated so that its top and bottom
become its sides. Such an orientation of the lamp would ensure that its
widest light beam is in a vertical plane just outboard of the side of
the trailer, and hence would be more likely to be visible by the driver
through the tractor's rearview mirrors.
In addition to providing general comments regarding this issue,
commenters are asked to specifically comment on the quantified aspects
of the proposed location, color, and photometric requirements of the
ABS malfunction lamp on trailers and dollies.
IV. Costs
NHTSA has already evaluated the economic impact of requiring
trailers and dollies to be equipped with an external ABS malfunction
lamp in the final rule on heavy vehicle ABS published on March 10,
1995. The agency estimated that the unit cost of requiring an ABS lamp
on trailers and dollies is $9.43. Since this proposed rule does not
require additional equipment, but only specifies location, color and
intensity for the ABS malfunction lamp, the proposal should not have
any impact on previously estimated costs or benefits.
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
1. Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulatory Planning and Review) and
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This proposal was not reviewed under E.O. 12866. NHTSA has analyzed
this proposal and determined that it is not ``significant'' within the
meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures. The impacts of the rule, if adopted, would be so minimal as
not to warrant preparation of a full regulation evaluation. As noted
above, NHTSA has already evaluated the economic impact of requiring an
external ABS malfunction lamp. For details, see the Final Economic
Assessment (FEA) titled, ``Final Rules FMVSS Nos. 105 & 121 Stability
and Control While Braking Requirements and Reinstatement of Stopping
Distance Requirements for Medium and Heavy Vehicles,'' published in
June 1994.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NHTSA has
evaluated the effects of this action on small entities. Based upon this
evaluation, I certify that the proposed amendment would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Vehicle and brake manufacturers typically would not qualify as small
entities. Further, as noted above, the proposal would have no impacts
on costs or benefits beyond those addressed in the FEA for the ABS
final rule. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis has been
prepared.
3. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the proposed rule would not have sufficient Federalism
implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment. No
State laws would be affected.
4. National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has considered the environmental implications of this
proposed rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 and determined that the proposed rule would not significantly
affect the human environment.
5. Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under
section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49
U.S.C. 30111), whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard. Section 105 of the Act (49 U.S.C. 30161) sets forth a
procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or
revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not
require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other
administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
Public Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. The NHTSA will continue
to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket
after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons
continue to examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and
PART 571--[AMENDED]
In consideration of the foregoing, the agency proposes to amend
Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, in Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations at Part 571 as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for Part 571 would continue to read as
follows:
[[Page 64014]]
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Sec. 571.121 would be amended by revising S5.2.3.3, which would
read as follows:
Sec. 571.121 Standard No. 121; Air Brake Systems.
* * * * *
S5.2.3.3 Antilock Malfunction Indicator. (a) In addition to the
requirements of S5.2.3.2, each trailer and trailer converter dolly
manufactured on or after March 1, 1998, and before March 1, 2006, shall
be equipped with an external indicator lamp that meets the requirements
of paragraphs (b)(1)-(5) and (c).
(b)(1) The lamp shall be designed to conform to the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J592 JUN92, Clearance,
Side Marker, and Identification Lamps.
(i) Except as provided in S5.2.3.3(b)(1)(ii), each trailer that is
not a trailer converter dolly shall be equipped with an indicator lamp
mounted on a permanent structure on the left side of the trailer as
viewed from the rear, as close to the front as practicable and at a
height as close as practicable to 96 inches above the road surface,
when measured from the center of the lamp on the trailer at curb
weight.
(ii) If it is impracticable to mount the indicator lamp on the left
side of the trailer at a height of 60 inches or more above the road
surface, the lamp shall be mounted on a permanent structure on the
front of the trailer as far leftward as practicable, at a height as
close as practicable to 96 inches above the road surface, when measured
from the center of the lamp on the trailer at curb weight.
(2) The lamp required in S5.2.3.3(b)(1)(i) and S5.2.3.3(b)(1)(ii)
shall be mounted to provide light toward the front and rotated so that
its top becomes its side, as specified in SAE J592 JUN92.
(3) The lamp for a converter dolly shall be mounted on a permanent
structure of the dolly so that the lamp is at a height above the road
surface of not less than 15 inches when measured from the center of the
lamp on the dolly at curb weight. The lamp shall be located such that
visual access to it, when viewed by a person standing erect and not
more than 10 feet from the dolly, is not obscured by other structures
on the dolly.
(4) The color of the lamp shall be yellow.
(c) The lamp shall be illuminated whenever power is supplied to the
antilock brake system and there is a malfunction that affects the
generation or transmission of response or control signals in the
trailer's antilock brake system. The lamp shall remain illuminated as
long as such a malfunction exists and power is supplied to the antilock
brake system. Each message about the existence of such a malfunction
shall be stored in the antilock brake system whenever power is no
longer supplied to the system. The lamp shall be automatically
reactivated when power is again supplied to the trailer's antilock
brake system. The lamp shall also be activated as a check of lamp
function whenever power is first supplied to the antilock brake system
and the vehicle is stationary. The lamp shall be deactivated at the end
of the check of lamp function, unless there is a malfunction or a
message about a malfunction that existed when power was last supplied
to the antilock brake system.
* * * * *
Issued on: December 8, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-30376 Filed 12-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30372 Imidacloprid; Pesticide Tolerances
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64006-64009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30372]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 5E4598/P638; FRL-4990-5]
RIN 2070-AC18
Imidacloprid; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to establish a time-limited tolerance for
indirect or inadvertent combined residues of the insecticide (1-[6-
chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-imidazolidinimine (referred to in
this document as imidacloprid) and its metabolites resulting from crop
rotational practices in or on the raw agricultural commodities in the
cucurbit vegetables crop group. The proposed regulation to establish a
maximum permissible level for residues of the insecticide was requested
in a petition submitted by the Interregional Research Project No. 4
(IR-4) pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The
time-limited tolerance would expire on December 31, 1996.
DATES: Comments, identified by the document control number [PP 5E4598/
P638], must be received on or before January 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Rm. 1132, CM #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202. Comments and data may
also be submitted electronically by sending electronic mail (e-mail)
to: [email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted
as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of
encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on disks in
WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII file format. All
[[Page 64007]]
comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the docket
number [PP 5E4425/P638]. Electronic comments on this proposed rule may
be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. Additional
information on electronic submissions can be found below in this
document.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
``Confidential Business Information.'' CBI should not be submitted
through e-mail. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
comment that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in
the public record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed
publicly by EPA without prior notice. All written comments will be
available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the address given above,
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Hoyt L. Jamerson,
Registration Division (7505W), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Office location and telephone number: Sixth Floor, Crystal Station #1,
2800 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-308-8783; e-
mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Interregional Research Project No. 4
(IR-4), New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, P.O. Box 231,
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, has submitted pesticide
petition (PP) 5E4598 to EPA on behalf of the Agricultural Experiment
Stations of California, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas.
The petition requests that the Administrator, pursuant to section
408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C.
346a(e), amend 40 CFR 180.472 by establishing a tolerance for indirect
or inadvertent, combined residues of the insecticide imidacloprid (1-
[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-imidazolidinimine) and its
metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl moiety, all expressed as
1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)-methyl]-N-nitro-2-imidazolidinimine,
resulting from crop rotational practices in or on the raw agricultural
commodities in the cucurbit vegetables crop group at 0.2 part per
million (ppm).
The proposed tolerance will not support registration for
imidacloprid on cucurbit vegetables. EPA will not consider applications
for section 3 or section 24(c) registration of imidacloprid on cucurbit
vegetables based the proposed time-limited tolerance. The tolerance
would allow growers to produce cucurbit vegetables in rotation with
crops that are treated in accordance with registered uses of
imidacloprid. Imidacloprid registrations prohibit growers from planting
crops which lack an imidacloprid tolerance on ground treated with the
insecticide within a 12-month period. In some areas, however, it is a
common practice for growers to plant back cucurbit vegetables (melons,
squash, and cucumbers) in fields that have been used to produce
tomatoes and peppers. Imidacloprid is registered and tolerances are
established for the fruiting vegetables crop group (including tomatoes
and peppers). There are no established imidacloprid tolerances,
however, for the cucurbit vegetables. Crop rotational studies reviewed
by EPA indicate that plant-back crops grown in fields treated with
imidacloprid may contain measurable amounts of the pesticide residue,
if the rotational crop is planted within 12 months of application of
the pesticide.
Currently, growers who plan to double crop with cucurbit vegetables
must not use imidacloprid, or they must not plant back cucurbit
vegetables in fields treated within 12 months of application with
imidacloprid. According to the University of Florida Cooperative
Extension Service, the inability to double crop because of the
imidacloprid plant-back restriction will have a serious financial
impact on the South Florida vegetable industry. Approximately 12,000
acres in South Florida are double cropped with cucurbit vegetables.
Much of this acreage has been treated with imidacloprid to control
sweet potato whitefly (silverleaf whitefly) on tomatoes. Prior to
registration of imidacloprid on tomatoes, EPA approved emergency
exemptions under Section 18 of Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for its use in California, Florida, South
Carolina, and Texas to avert significant economic loss from sweet
potato white fly damage.
The proposed tolerance, which would expire on December 31, 1996,
should allow IR-4 sufficient time to submit a permanent tolerance for
imidacloprid on cucurbit vegetables. IR-4 is developing field residue
data in support of a permanent tolerance and registration for use of
imidacloprid on cucurbit vegetables. The permanent tolerance will be
proposed by IR-4 to cover residues in cucurbit vegetables from
application to the growing crop, as well as crop rotational practices.
EPA's policy is to consider tolerance petitions, when requested by
the registrants or any interested parties, for pesticide residues on
replacement or rotational crops when residues result from pesticide
carryover in soil from treatment of previous crops. Such tolerances
will be set at levels determined to be appropriate based on evaluations
of toxicity and residue data submitted to the Agency by the petitioner.
Guidance on how to conduct residue studies on rotation crops can be
found in the EPA publication ``Pesticide Reregistration Reject Rate
Analysis Residue Chemistry/Environmental Fate Follow Up Guidance for
Conducting Rotational Crop Studies,'' February 1993. The procedures for
filing a petition, as described in 40 CFR 180.7, should be followed,
and each petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee, as
specified in 40 CFR 180.33.
The toxicological data considered in support of the proposed
tolerance include:
1. A 1-year chronic feeding study in dogs fed diets containing 0,
200, 500, or 1,250/2,500 ppm (average intake was 0, 6.1, 15, or 41/72
milligrams (mg)/kilogram (kg)/day) with a no-observed-effect level of
1,250 ppm based on increased plasma cholesterol and liver cytochrome P-
450 levels in dogs at the 2,500-ppm dose level. The high dose was
increased to 2,500 ppm (72 mg/kg/day) from week 17 onward due to lack
of toxicity at the 1,250-dose level.
2. A 2-year feeding/carcinogenicity study in rats fed diets
containing 0, 100, 300, 900, or 1,800 ppm with a NOEL for chronic
effects at 100 ppm (5.7 mg/kg/day in males, 7.6 mg/kg/day in females)
that included decreased body weight gain in females at 300 ppm (24.9
mg/kg/day) and above; and increased thyroid lesions in males at 300 ppm
(16.9 mg/kg/day) and above, and in females at 900 ppm (73 mg/kg/day)
and above. There were no apparent carcinogenic effects under the
conditions of the study.
3. A 2-year carcinogenicity study in mice fed diets containing 0,
100, 330, 1,000, or 2,000 ppm with a NOEL of 1,000 ppm (208 mg/kg/day
in males, 274 mg/kg/day in females) based on decreased food consumption
and decreased water intake at the 2,000-ppm dose level. There were no
apparent carcinogenic effects observed under the conditions of this
study.
4. A three-generation reproduction study with rats fed diets
containing 0, 100, 250, or 700 ppm with a reproductive no-observed-
effect level
[[Page 64008]]
(NOEL) of 100 ppm (equivalent to 8 mg/kg/day based on decreased pup
body weight observed at the 250-ppm dose level.
5. A developmental toxicity study in rat given gavage doses at 0,
10, 30, or 100 mg/kg/day during gestation days 6 to 16 with a NOEL for
developmental toxicity at 30 mg/kg/day based on increased wavy ribs
observed at the 100- mg/kg/day dose level.
6. A developmental toxicity study in rabbits given gavage doses at
0, 8, 24, or 72 mg/kg/day during gestation days 6 through 19 with a
NOEL for developmental toxicity at 24 mg/kg/day based on decreased body
weight and increased skeletal abnormalities observed at the 72-mg/kg/
day dose level.
7. Imidacloprid was negative for mutagenic effects in all but two
of 23 mutagenic assays. Imidacloprid tested positive for chromosome
aberrations in an in vitro cytogenetic study with human lymphocytes for
the detection of induced clastogenic effects, and for genotoxicity in
an in vitro cytogenetic assay measuring sister chromatid exchange in
Chinese hamster ovary cells.
Dietary risk assessments for imidacloprid indicate that there is
minimal risk from established tolerances and the proposed tolerance for
cucurbit vegetables. A cancer risk assessment is not appropriate for
imidacloprid since the pesticide is assigned to ``Group E'' (no
evidence of carcinogenicity) of EPA's cancer classification system.
Dietary risk assessments for the pesticide were conducted using the
Reference Dose (RfD) to assess chronic exposure and risk.
The RfD is calculated at 0.057 mg/kg/of body weight/day based on a
NOEL of 5.7 mg/kg/day from the 2-year rat feeding/carcinogenicity study
and 100-fold uncertainty factor. The theoretical maximum residue
contribution (TMRC) from existing tolerances utilizes less than 15
percent of the RfD for the general population and less than 30 percent
of the RfD for nonnursing infants less than 1 year in age. The proposed
tolerance for cucurbit vegetables would utilize less than 1 percent of
the RfD for the general population and all population subgroups.
There is no reasonable expectation that secondary residues will
occur in milk and eggs, or meat, fat, and meat byproducts of livestock
or poultry; there are no livestock feed items associated with the
cucurbit vegetables.
The metabolism of imidacloprid in plants and livestock is
adequately understood. The residues of concern are combined residues of
imidacloprid and its metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl
moiety, all calculated as imidacloprid. The analytical method is a
common moiety method for imidacloprid and its metabolites containing
the 6-chloropyridiyl moiety using a permanganate oxidation, silyl
derivatization, and capillary GC-MS selective ion monitoring.
There are currently no actions pending against the continued
registration of this chemical.
Based on the information and data considered, the Agency has
determined that the tolerance established by amending 40 CFR 180 would
protect the public health. Therefore, it is proposed that the tolerance
be established as set forth below.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, which contains any of the
ingredients listed herein, may request within 30 days after publication
of this notice in the Federal Register that this rulemaking proposal be
referred to an Advisory Committee in accordance with section 408(e) of
the FFDCA.
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [PP 5E4598/P638] (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does
not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
opp-D[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the
beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order (i.e.,
Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines ``significant'' as
those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially
affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal
governments or communities (also known as ``economically
significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement, grants, user
fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the
principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 30, 1995.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be amended as
follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
[[Page 64009]]
2. In Sec. 180.472, by adding new paragraph (f), to read as
follows:
Sec. 180.472 1-[(6-Chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-
imidazolidinimine; tolerances for residues.
* * * * *
(f) Time-limited indirect or inadvertent tolerance: A time-limited
tolerance, to expire on December 31, 1996, is established for indirect
or inadvertent combined residues of the insecticide 1-[(6-chloro-3-
pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-imidazolidinimine and its metabolites
containing the 6-chloropyridinyl moiety, all expressed as 1-[(6-chloro-
3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-imidazolidinimine, when present therein
as a result of the application of the pesticide to growing crops listed
in this section and other nonfood crops as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commmodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vegetables, cucurbit....................................... 0.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 95-30372 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30371 Ethane, 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoro-; Revocation of a Significant New Use Rule
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64009-64010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30371]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 721
[OPPTS-50601G; FRL-4976-3]
Ethane, 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoro-; Revocation of a Significant New
Use Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke a significant new use rule (SNUR)
promulgated under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) for ethane, 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoro-, based on receipt of new
data. The data indicate that for purposes of TSCA section 5, the
substance will not present an unreasonable risk to human health.
DATES: Written comments must be received by January 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: All comments must be sent in triplicate to: OPPT Document
Control Officer (7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Room G-099, East
Tower, Washington, DC 20460.
Comments that are confidential must be clearly marked confidential
business information (CBI). If CBI is claimed, an additional sanitized
copy must also be submitted. Nonconfidential versions of comments on
this proposed rule will be placed in the rulemaking record and will be
available for public inspection. Comments should include the docket
control number. The docket control number for the chemical substance in
this SNUR is OPPTS-50601G. Unit III of this preamble contains
additional information on submitting comments containing CBI.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected],gov. Electronic comments
must be submitted as ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on
disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file format. All
comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the docket
number (OPPTS-50601G). No CBI should be submitted through e-mail.
Electronic comments on this proposed rule may be filed online at many
Federal Depository Libraries. Additional information on electronic
submissions can be found in Unit IV of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan B. Hazen, Director,
Environmental Assistance Division (7408), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. E-543A, 401
M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, Telephone: (202) 554-1404, TDD: (202)
554-0551; e-mail: TSCA-Hotline @epamail.epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of September 23,
1992 (57 FR 44064), EPA issued a SNUR (FRL-4001-2) establishing
significant new uses for ethane, 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoro-. Because of
additional data EPA has received for this substance, EPA is proposing
to revoke this SNUR.
I. Proposed Revocation
EPA is proposing to revoke the significant new use and
recordkeeping requirements for ethane, 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoro- under 40
CFR part 721, subpart E. In this unit, EPA provides a brief description
for the substance, including its premanufacture notice (PMN) number,
chemical name (generic name if the specific name is claimed as CBI),
CAS number (if assigned), basis for the revocation of the section 5(e)
consent order for the substance, and the CFR citation removed in the
regulatory text section of this proposed rule. Further background
information for the substance is contained in the rulemaking record
referenced in Unit IV of this preamble.
PMN Number: P-91-1392
Chemical name: Ethane, 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoro-.
CAS Registry Number: Not available.
Effective date of revocation of section 5(e) consent order: February
21, 1995.
Basis for revocation of section 5(e) consent order: The order was
revoked based on test data submitted under the terms of the consent
order. Based on the Agency's analysis of the submitted data, EPA can no
longer support a finding that the manufacture, processing, distribution
in commerce, use, or disposal of the PMN substance may present an
unreasonable risk to human health. Accordingly, EPA has determined that
further regulation under section 5(e) is not warranted at this time.
Toxicity testing results: The PMN substance P-91-1392 was tested in a
cardiac sensitization study (epinephrine challenge in dogs), a 90-day
inhalation toxicity study in rats, and a developmental inhalation
toxicity study (rats and rabbits). The 90-day subchronic study showed
that there were no observable adverse effects at concentrations up to
50,000 parts per million (ppm). There were no observed developmental
toxicity effects at concentrations up to 50,000 ppm in the
developmental toxicity study. There was evidence of maternal toxicity
at 50,000 ppm but no maternal effects noted at 15,000 ppm. The PMN
substance P-91-1392 was found to be a cardiac sensitizer when exposures
occurred at a 10 percent concentration in air (100,000 ppm) for 10
minutes. Lower exposures did not elicit a sensitization response.
CFR Number: 40 CFR 721.3240
II. Background and Rationale for Proposed Revocation of the Rule
During review of the PMN submitted for the chemical substance that
is the subject of this proposed revocation, EPA concluded that
regulation was warranted under section 5(e) of TSCA pending the
development of information sufficient to make a reasoned evaluation of
the environmental effects of the substance, and that the substance is
expected to be produced in substantial quantities and there may be
significant or substantial human exposure. EPA identified the tests
necessary to make a reasoned evaluation of the risks posed by the
substance to the human health. Based on these findings, a section 5(e)
consent order was negotiated with the PMN submitter and a SNUR was
promulgated.
EPA reviewed testing conducted by the PMN submitter pursuant to the
[[Page 64010]]
consent order for the substance and determined that the information
available was sufficient to make a reasoned evaluation of the health
effects of the substance. EPA concluded that, for the purposes of TSCA
section 5, the substance will not present an unreasonable risk and
consequently revoked the section 5(e) consent order. The proposed
revocation of SNUR provisions for the substance designated herein is
consistent with the revocation of the section 5(e) order.
In light of the above, EPA is proposing a revocation of SNUR
provisions for this chemical substance. When this revocation becomes
final, EPA will no longer require notice of any company's intent to
manufacture, import, or process this substance. In addition, export
notification under section 12(b) of TSCA will no longer be required.
III. Comments Containing Confidential Business Information
Any person who submits comments claimed as CBI must mark the
comments as ``confidential,'' ``trade secret,'' or other appropriate
designation. Comments not claimed as confidential at the time of
submission will be placed in the public file. Any comments marked as
confidential will be treated in accordance with the procedures in 40
CFR part 2. Any party submitting comments claimed to be confidential
must prepare and submit a public version of the comments that EPA can
place in the public file.
IV. Rulemaking Record
The record for the rule which EPA is proposing to revoke was
established at OPPTS-50601 (P-91-1392). This record includes
information considered by the Agency in developing the rule and
includes the test data that formed the basis for this proposal.
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number OPPTS-50601G (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does
not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 12 noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public record is located in the TSCA Nonconfidential
Information Center, Rm. NE-B607, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the
beginning of this document.
V. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
EPA is proposing to revoke the requirements of the rule. Any costs
or burdens associated with the rule will also be eliminated when the
rule is revoked. Therefore, EPA finds that no costs or burdens must be
assessed under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 605(b)), or the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous materials, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Significant new uses.
Dated: December 5, 1995.
Charles M. Auer,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 721 be amended as
follows:
PART 721--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 721 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).
Sec. 721.3240 [Removed]
2. By removing Sec. 721.3240.
[FR Doc. 95-30371 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30370 Establishment of Class E Airspace; Bigfork, MN
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63993-63994]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30370]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AGL-20]
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Bigfork, MN
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to establish Class E5 airspace at Bigfork
Municipal Airport, Bigfork, MN, to accommodate a Nondirectional Radio
[[Page 63994]]
Beacon (NDB) to serve Runway 15. Controlled airspace extending upward
from 700 to 1200 feet above ground level (AGL) is needed for aircraft
executing the approach. The intended effect of this proposal is to
provide segregation of aircraft using instrument approach procedures in
instrument conditions from other aircraft operating in visual weather
conditions.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 29, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, AGL-7,
Rules Docket No. 95-AGL-20, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines,
Illinois 60018.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 2300 East Devon Avenue,
Des Plaines, Illinois. An informal docket may also be examined during
normal business hours at the Air Traffic Division, System Management
Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des
Plaines, Illinois.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eleanor J. Williams, Air Traffic
Division, System Management Branch, AGL-530, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018,
telephone (708) 294-7568.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 95-
AGL-20.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received on or before the specified
closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on
the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed
in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available
for examination in the Rules Docket, FAA, Great Lakes Region, Office of
the Assistant Chief Counsel, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines,
Illinois, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report
summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration,
Office of Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-230,
800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling
(202) 267-3484. Communications must identify the notice number of this
NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which
describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Class E5 airspace at
Bigfork Municipal Airport, Bigfork, MN, to accommodate a Nondirectional
Radio Beacon (NDB) to serve Runway 15. Controlled airspace extending
upward from 700 to 1200 feet AGL is needed to contain aircraft
executing the approach. The intended effect of this action is to
provide segregation of aircraft using instrument approach procedures in
instrument conditions from other aircraft operating in visual weather
conditions. The area would be depicted on appropriate aeronautical
charts thereby enabling pilots to circumnavigate the area or otherwise
comply with IFR procedures. Class E airspace designations for airspace
areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the
earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated August
17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in
this document would be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore this, proposed regulation--(1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 The Class E airspace areas extending upward from
700 feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
AGL MN E5 Bigfork, MN [New]
Bigfork Municipal Airport, MN
(lat. 47 deg.46'44.7'' N, long. 93 deg.39'00.6'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of the Bigfork Municipal Airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on November 22, 1996.
Maureen Woods,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division.
FR Doc. 95-30370 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30360 Minimum Financial Requirements, Prepayment of Subordinated Debt and Gross Collection of Exchange-Set Margin for Omnibus Accounts
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63994-64000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30360]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63995]]
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
17 CFR Part 1
Minimum Financial Requirements, Prepayment of Subordinated Debt
and Gross Collection of Exchange-Set Margin for Omnibus Accounts
AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission) proposes
to amend: (1) Rules 1.17(a)(1)(i) and (ii) to (a) increase the minimum
required dollar amount of adjusted net capital for futures commission
merchants (FCMs) from $50,000 to $250,000, (b) increase the minimum
required dollar amount of adjusted net capital for introducing brokers
(IBs) from $20,000 to $30,000, and (c) make the amount of adjusted net
capital required by a registered futures association for its member
FCMs and IBs an element of the Commission's minimum financial
requirements for FCMs and IBs; (2) Rule 1.17(h)(2)(vii) with respect to
the procedure to obtain approval for prepayment of subordinated debt;
and (3) Rule 1.58, which governs gross collection of exchange-set
margins for omnibus accounts, to make it applicable to omnibus accounts
carried by FCMs for foreign brokers. The Commission believes that these
amendments will conform the Commission's rules with those of industry
self-regulatory organizations (SROs) and therefore should not require
changes in the operations of most firms.
DATES: Comments on the proposed amendments must be received on or
before January 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Jean A. Webb, Secretary of the
Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20581. Please refer to ``Financial Rule Amendments.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence B. Patent, Associate Chief
Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets, Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, 1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581. Telephone:
(202) 418-5439.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Minimum Financial Requirements
A. Minimum Financial Requirements for FCMs
Rule 1.17(a)(1)(i) requires FCMs to maintain adjusted net capital
equal to or in excess of the greatest of: (1) $50,000, (2) four percent
of the sum of the amount of funds required to be segregated under
Section 4d(2) of the Commodity Exchange Act (Act) 1(i.e., for
trading in U.S. markets) and the amount of funds required to be set
aside under Commission Rule 30.7 2 for customers trading foreign
markets (referred to as the ``secured amount''); or (3) if an FCM is
also registered as a securities broker-dealer, the amount of net
capital required by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).3
The $50,000 minimum dollar requirement was established in 1978
4and has remained unchanged. On August 27, 1990, the Commission
approved amendments to Rule 201 of the Chicago Board of Trade (CBT) and
Section 1 of NFA's Financial Requirements increasing their respective
FCM members' minimum adjusted net capital requirement to
$250,000.5 The NFA proposed the minimum adjusted net capital
increase based upon the growth in trading volume in the
industry,6the increase in segregated funds per FCM 7and the
decrease in the value of the dollar that had occurred since 1978. The
Commission approved these amendments to provide FCM customers with the
same degree of protection that was provided by the $50,000 minimum
adjusted net capital requirement when it was originally adopted in
1978.
\1\ 7 U.S.C. 6d(2) (1994).
\2\ 17 CFR 30.7 (1995).
\3\ Commission Rule 170.15 mandates that each person required to
register as an FCM become and remain a member of a futures
association which provides for the membership therein of such FCM
unless there is no registered futures association. National Futures
Association (NFA) is the only registered futures association. It has
an FCM membership category and virtually all FCMs are NFA members.
However, there are approximately 90 firms registered as FCMs (out of
a total of approximately 260) that do not handle customer funds and
therefore are not required to register as FCMs. Accordingly, these
firms are not required to be NFA members pursuant to Commission Rule
170.15 but almost all of them are NFA members anyway. However, there
still are approximately ten registered FCMs that are not members of
any SRO and thus have a current minimum dollar adjusted net capital
requirement of $100,000 under Commission Rule 1.17(a)(1)(i)(A).
Since such a small number of firms are in this category, for ease of
discussion we shall assume that all registered FCMs currently have a
minimum dollar requirement of adjusted net capital of $50,000 under
Commission rules.
\4\ See 43 FR 39956 (September 8, 1978).
\5\ On November 24, 1992, the SEC also adopted rule amendments
to raise its minimum net capital requirement for securities broker-
dealers holding customer funds, which had been $25,000, to $250,000
in stages. The requirement increased to $100,000 effective July 1,
1993, $175,000 effective January 1, 1994 and to the current level of
$250,000 effective July 1, 1994. See 57 FR 56973, 56990 (Dec. 2,
1992); 17 CFR Sec. 240.15c3-1e(a)(1995).
\6\ This trend has continued. In fiscal year 1990, 334.2 million
futures and option contracts were traded on U.S. contract markets,
and that number increased more than 50 percent in the last five
years to approximately 504.8 million in fiscal year 1995.
\7\ In NFA's 1990 submission, it noted that the average amount
of funds in segregation at each FCM more than tripled from 1980 to
1985, increasing from $8.7 million to $28.5 million. That amount
more than tripled again in the last ten years and now exceeds $100
million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of Commission Rule 1.17, the
Commission's minimum financial requirements are not applicable to a
registrant that is a member of an SRO and that conforms to the minimum
financial standards set by such SRO. As noted above, all persons
required to register as FCMs are required to be NFA members under
Commission Rule 170.15. Consequently, when the Com-mission approved
NFA's amendment of the minimum dollar amount of adjusted net capital
required of its member FCMs in 1990, the Commission effectively raised
the dollar level of minimum adjusted net capital for all FCMs to
$250,000.
The Commission nonetheless believes that raising the required
minimum dollar amount of adjusted net capital for FCMs under Commission
Rule 1.17 to that required by NFA and CBT for their members is
necessary and appropriate for the following reasons. Section 8c(a)(1)
of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 12c(a)(1) (1994), authorizes the Commission to
discipline a member of an exchange in accordance with the rules of that
exchange if the exchange fails to do so. Section 17(l)(1) of the Act, 7
U.S.C. 21(1)(1) (1994), authorizes the Commission to suspend a
registered futures association that has failed to enforce compliance
with its own rules. However, the Commission does not have the authority
to discipline an exchange member for violation of an exchange rule in
the absence of the exchange's failure to act, or to enforce compliance
with a registered futures association's own rule upon a member thereof.
This limitation upon the Commission's enforcement remedies in the
context of SRO rules does not, of course, exist in the context of
violations of the Act or Commission regulations. Section 6c of the Act,
7 U.S.C. 13a-1 (1994), authorizes the Commission, whenever it appears
that a person has engaged, is engaging, or is about to engage in any
act or practice constituting a violation of any provision of the Act or
any rule or regulation thereunder, to bring an action to enjoin such
act or practice, or to enforce compliance with the Act or any rule or
regulation thereunder.
The proposed amendment to Rule 1.17(a)(1)(i)(A) thus would permit
the Commission to use its authority under Section 6c of the Act to
enforce
[[Page 63996]]
compliance with what is effectively, for the reasons discussed above,
the current minimum adjusted net capital requirement applicable to FCMs
with the benefit of all of the remedies available to it under the Act
for the enforcement of compliance with any provision of the Act and any
rule promulgated thereunder. In addition, this amendment would
harmonize the Commission's minimum dollar requirement for FCMs with the
prevailing standards established by NFA rules and support the objective
of assuring that FCMs have a substantial base of liquid capital from
which to meet their obligations to customers, an objective for which an
increased requirement appears appropriate given the increase in the
amount of funds held by FCMs and the change in the value of the dollar
since 1978.
The Commission believes it is necessary to clarify its authority to
require the transfer of positions at such time as a firm is no longer
in compliance with the NFA rule. The Commission further believes that a
base minimum adjusted net capital requirement of $250,000 is now
essential to providing both an adequate stake in doing business in
accordance with Commission rules and otherwise to provide a cushion
sufficient with applicable haircuts and segregation of customer funds
to permit the Commission to act in an emergency.
The Commission also believes that the rule amendment is necessary to
eliminate any confusion that may have existed as to whether the
Commission could take action where an FCM's adjusted net capital is
below $250,000 yet still exceeds $50,000.
Accordingly, the Commission is proposing to amend Rule
1.17(a)(1)(i)(A) to increase the minimum dollar amount of adjusted net
capital for FCMs to $250,000.8 In light of the amount of the
proposed increase and the fact that, unlike the situation in 1978, very
few FCMs are not members of any SRO and that those few FCMs in that
category cannot handle customer funds, the Commission sees no need to
maintain a higher dollar amount of required adjusted net capital for an
FCM that is not a member of any SRO. In any event, such FCMs would have
an increase in their adjusted net capital requirement from the current
$100,000 to the proposed $250,000 that would apply to all FCMs.
\8\ The Commission believes, for the reasons discussed above,
that an increase from $50,000 to $250,000 is necessary and that it
is unnecessary to phase this in over time as the SEC did in that
most firms already meet the NFA requirement. The Commission also
notes that when it adopted the current $50,000 standard in 1978,
that was also a five-fold, one-step increase in the existing
standard of $10,000 of working capital originally adopted by the
Commission's predecessor agency, the Commodity Exchange Authority,
effective March 17, 1969. 34 FR 599 (Jan. 16, 1969).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission further notes that several provisions of the
Commission's minimum financial rules for FCMs, as well as one provision
of the financial early warning system, contain cross-references to Rule
1.17(a)(1)(i)(A). Certain actions are restricted or required if the
specified levels of adjusted net capital, which in all cases exceed 100
percent of the minimum dollar amount, are breached. These include Rule
1.17(e)(1)(i) (restricting the withdrawals of equity capital as well as
the following paragraphs of Rule 1.17 concerning subordinated debt:
paragraph (h)(2)(vi)(C)(1) (restricting the parties to a secured demand
note (SDN) agreement from providing in such agreement that the unpaid
principal amount of an SDN can be reduced below a floor amount if the
value of collateral securing the SDN declines below the unpaid
principal amount); paragraphs (h)(2)(vii)(A)(1) and (B)(1) (restricting
prepayments and special prepayments); (h)(2)(viii)(A)(1) (requiring
suspension of repayment); (h)(3)(ii)(A) (requiring notice of maturity
or accelerated maturity); and (h)(3)(v)(A) (restricting use of
temporary subordinations). In addition, Rule 1.12(b)(1) establishes the
``early warning'' minimum dollar level of adjusted net capital as 150
percent of the minimum dollar requirement, triggering notice and
follow-up reporting requirements when an FCM's adjusted net capital is
below that level. Even though the Commission is not amending the
provisions of Rules 1.12 and 1.17 that cross-reference Rule
1.17(a)(1)(i)(A), the proposed amendment of the latter will have a
corresponding impact on the various FCM activities or obligations
referred to above.9
\9\ For example, equity capital withdrawals from an FCM
currently cannot reduce the FCM's adjusted net capital below $60,000
(120 percent of the minimum amount); if the amendment proposed
herein to Rule 1.17(a)(1)(i)(A) were adopted, equity capital
withdrawals would not be permitted to reduce the FCM's adjusted net
capital below $300,000. Similarly, the ``early warning'' level of
adjusted net capital would increase from $75,000 to $375,000 despite
the fact that Rule 1.12(b)(1) itself would not be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission held a roundtable on capital on September 18, 1995
where several issues were discussed pertaining to minimum financial
requirements. One of the issues discussed was whether the second prong
of the current requirement, based upon four percent of the sum of
segregated customer funds and the secured amount, should be amended in
an effort to make an FCM's minimum adjusted net capital requirement
reflect more closely the risks to an FCM caused by carrying open
positions. The Commission may address that issue in a subsequent
release following a review of empirical data being developed by the
SROs but is not prepared to do so at this time.
B. Minimum Financial Requirements for IBs
Rule 1.17 also requires introducing brokers (IBs) 10 to
maintain certain prescribed minimum amounts of adjusted net capital.
Pursuant to Rule 1.17(a)(1)(ii), each person registered as an IB must
maintain adjusted net capital equal to or in excess of the greater of:
(A) $20,000 ($40,000 for each person registered as an IB who is not a
member of an SRO); 11 or, (B) if the IB is also a securities
broker-dealer, the amount of net capital required by the SEC.
\10\ Section 1a(14) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 1a(14)(1994), defines
an IB as ``any person (except an individual who elects to be and is
registered as an associated person of [an FCM]) engaged in
soliciting or in accepting orders for the purchase or sale of any
commodity for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any
contract market who does not accept any money, securities or
property (or extend credit in lieu thereof) to margin, guarantee, or
secure any trades or contracts that result or may result
therefrom.'' Commission Rule 1.3(mm), 17 CFR 1.3(mm) (1995), also
includes in the definition of an IB any person required to register
as such by virtue of Part 33 of the Commission's rules, 17 CFR Part
33 (1995).
\11\ As is the case with FCMs discussed above, virtually all
registered IBs are members of NFA. Any IB that is registered but not
an NFA member would be precluded from introducing customer accounts
to an FCM and thus could not act as an IB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 6, 1992, the Commission approved NFA rule amendments
which, among other things, increased the required minimum dollar amount
of adjusted net capital for member IBs from $20,000 to $30,000.
However, the Commission did not at that time amend Commission Rule
1.17(a)(1)(ii)(A) to conform to NFA's rule amendment. The Commission
believes that since it is now proposing to raise the minimum dollar
amount of required adjusted net capital for FCMs as discussed above, it
is appropriate also to propose an increase in the required minimum
dollar amount of adjusted net capital for IBs. Accordingly, the
Commission is proposing to amend Rule 1.17(a)(1)(ii)(A) to raise the
minimum dollar amount of required net capital for a registered IB to
$30,000. For reasons similar to those discussed above concerning FCMs,
the Commission would eliminate any higher requirement for an IB that is
not a member of an SRO.
[[Page 63997]]
This proposed amendment, like the proposal applicable to FCMs,
would conform the Commission's rule to the general industry standard
established by NFA. Therefore, there should be essentially no impact on
the operations of IBs as a result of this amendment. In any event, the
proposed amendment would only affect the minority of IBs who raise
their own capital. Those IBs who have entered into guarantee agreements
with FCMs would be unaffected by the proposed amendment.12
\12\ More than two-thirds of IBs enter into guarantee agreements
with FCMs in accordance with Commission Rules 1.17(a)(2)(ii) and
1.10(j) in lieu of raising their own capital.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Conforming Commission and Registered Futures Association Rules
The Commission also approved NFA rule amendments on October 6, 1992
which provide that a member IB's minimum adjusted net capital
requirement, as well as that of a member FCM, can be determined by the
number of offices it operates and the number of APs it sponsors.13
When NFA presented these provisions to the Commission, NFA stated that
the amount of the IB minimum financial requirement should be linked to
the size of an IB's operation and that it concluded, after studying
several factors related to an IB's business, that the number of offices
operated or APs sponsored by an IB were the most relevant factors to be
used in a formula establishing an IB's minimum financial requirement.
NFA also stated that an FCM's minimum financial requirement should
parallel that of an IB in this regard.14 The Commission believes
that it should incorporate the NFA standards concerning the number of
offices or APs sponsored into the minimum financial requirements for
FCMs and IBs in Rule 1.17, and eliminate the necessity to amend Rule
1.17 each time NFA amends its minimum financial requirements in order
to avoid a recurrence of the current situation where NFA's minimum
dollar amount of adjusted net capital for an FCM is $250,000 and the
Commission's minimum is $50,000. Therefore, the Commission is proposing
to redesignate paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(C) and (a)(1)(ii)(B) as paragraphs
(a)(1)(i)(D) and (a)(1)(ii)(C), respectively, of Rule 1.17, and to add
new paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(C) and (a)(1)(ii)(B) that would provide that
``the amount of adjusted net capital required by a registered futures
association of which it is a member'' is an element of the Commission's
minimum financial requirement for FCMs and IBs. The Commission is also
proposing conforming amendments to the early warning level of adjusted
net capital for FCMs,15 the restriction on withdrawals of equity
capital and the various provisions of Rule 1.17(h) discussed above
concerning subordinated debt.16
\13\ Section 9 of NFA's Financial Requirements is entitled
``Introducing Broker Financial Requirements'' and provides as
follows:
Each Member IB, except an IB operating pursuant to a guarantee
agreement which meets the requirements set forth in CFTC Regulation
1.10(j), must maintain ``Adjusted Net Capital'' (as defined in
Schedule A hereto) equal to or in excess of the greatest of:
(i) $30,000; or,
(ii) $6,000 per office operated by the IB (including the main
office); or,
(iii) $3,000 for each AP sponsored by the IB; or
(iv) (for securities brokers and dealers), the amount of net
capital required by Rule 15c3-1(a) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission (17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)).
The corresponding provision for an FCM with respect to offices
and APs is based upon ``$6,000 for each remote location operated
(i.e., proprietary branch offices, main office of each guaranteed IB
and branch offices of each guaranteed IB); or, $3,000 for each AP
sponsored (including APs sponsored by guaranteed IBs).'' Section 1
of NFA's Financial Requirements.
\14\ According to discussions with NFA staff, there are
currently less than ten FCMs and less than ten IBs whose minimum
financial requirement is based upon the number of offices operated
or APs sponsored. As of September 30, 1995, of the registered IBs,
1,080 operated pursuant to guarantee agreements with an FCM and 388
were raising their own capital.
\15\ See proposed new paragraph (b)(3) of Rule 1.12, which is
based upon 150% of the amount of adjusted net capital required by a
registered futures association, and is proportional to the other
elements of Rule 1.12(b).
\16\ See the following proposed new Rule 1.17(e)(1)(iii) and the
proposed new paragraphs of Rule 1.17: (h)(2)(vi)(C)(3) (restricting
reductions in unpaid principal amount of an SDN); (h)(2)(vii)(A)(3)
(restricting prepayments); (h)(2)(vii)(B)(3) (restricting special
prepayments); (h)(2)(viii)(A)(3) (requiring suspension of
repayment); (h)(3)(ii)(C) (requiring notice of maturity or
accelerated maturity); and (h)(3)(v)(C) (restricting use of
temporary subordinations). The levels of adjusted net capital set
forth in the proposed new paragraphs of Rule 1.17 are 120 percent of
the registered futures association's minimum amount, except for the
provision concerning special prepayment which would be 200 percent.
These percentages correspond to the current levels in those rules
that are based upon the minimum dollar amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Prepayment of Subordinated Debt
For purposes of computing net capital, debt covered by
``satisfactory subordinated agreements'' can be excluded from
liabilities.17 Rule 1.17(h)(2)(vii)(A) generally prohibits any
prepayment of subordinated debt for one year following the date upon
which the governing subordination agreement became effective. However,
Rule 1.17(h)(2)(vii)(B) permits special prepayment of subordinated debt
at any time (even during the first year) provided that, after giving
effect thereto, the applicant's or registrant's adjusted net capital
does not fall below certain amounts prescribed in the rule, which are
approximately one and one-half times the amounts of capital required
for a normal prepayment. In addition, no prepayment and no special
prepayment may occur unless the registrant has obtained written
approval of its designated self-regulatory organization (DSRO), if any,
and the Commission.18
\17\ See Commission Rule 1.17(h) for a definition of the term
``satisfactory subordination agreement''.
\18\ An applicant for registration must obtain prior written
approval of NFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 10, 1985, the Commission's Division of Trading and
Markets (Division) advised all registered IBs, FCMs and SROs of its
intention to recommend to the Commission that Rule 1.17(h)(2)(vii) be
changed to require only the DSRO's approval for prepayment of
subordinated debt.19 ``The requirement for dual approval has been
in effect for approximately seven years'', the Division stated,
``[d]uring [which] time, the DSROs have gained greater familiarity
regarding subordinated debt and * * * have demonstrated * * * an
ability to work together in the area of financial surveillance.'' This
change would ``make the treatment of prepayment of subordinated debt
consistent with the treatment of approval of new subordinated debt or
amendments to subordinated agreements.''
\19\ CFTC Interpretative Letter No. 85-17, [1984-1986 Transfer
Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) para.22,738 (Sept. 10, 1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is proposing to implement the change contemplated in
Interpretative Letter No. 85-17 by amending Rule 1.17(h)(2)(vii) to
require submission of a request for approval of prepayment of
subordinated debt by a registrant to the DSRO only, if any, or to the
Commission in those rare instances where the registrant is not an SRO
member. Dual approval by the DSRO and the Commission would be required,
however, should the requested prepayment or special prepayment result
in a reduction of 20 percent or more of the registrant's adjusted net
capital. Therefore, if a firm's subordinated debt amounts to 25 percent
of its adjusted net capital and the firm wishes to prepay all of it and
simultaneously enter into new subordinated debt arrangements for the
same amount, but at a different maturity or interest rate, dual
approval would not be required since there would be no net effect on
the firm's adjusted net capital. Similarly, if a firm wanted to convert
subordinated debt to paid-in-capital, dual approval would not be
required so
[[Page 63998]]
long as such conversion did not result in a reduction of 20 percent or
more of the firm's adjusted net capital.
III. Gross Collection of Exchange-Set Margins
Pursuant to Commission Rule 1.58, each FCM which carries a
commodity futures or commodity option position for another FCM on an
omnibus basis must collect, and each FCM for which an omnibus account
is being carried must deposit, initial and maintenance margin on each
position reported in accordance with Commission Rule 17.04 at a level
no less than that established for customer accounts by the rules of the
applicable contract market. Rule 1.58 was proposed in 1981 20
following the bankruptcy of three FCMs who cleared trades solely by
means of omnibus accounts. The Commission was concerned that customer
funds were ``being held by firms that, in comparison to clearing FCMs,
generally [had] less capital and [were] less equipped to handle the
volatility of the commodity markets''.21 It is also the case, as
demonstrated during the collapse of Barings PLC, that net margining of
an omnibus account can mask risk to the clearing member. Thus, the
primary purposes of Rule 1.58 were to ``strengthen the industry and
enhance customer protection by moving segregated funds into the
normally better-capitalized hands of a clearing member'' and to provide
the Commission and the SROs with better information with respect to
omnibus accounts.22
\20\ 46 FR 62864 (Dec. 29, 1981).
\21\ Id.
\22\ 47 FR 21026 (May 17, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As originally adopted and currently, Rule 1.58 does not apply to
omnibus accounts carried by FCMs on behalf of foreign brokers.23
On November 16, 1988, the Division issued Financial and Segregation
Interpretation No. 12 which, among other things, requires FCMs to
obtain an agreement from customers who desire to have funds held
offshore whereby such customers authorize the subordination of their
claims attributable to funds held offshore to the claims of other
customers should the FCM be placed in bankruptcy or receivership.
Although the Commission is in the process of reviewing this
Interpretation from the perspective of certain foreign currency
deposits in light of the provisions for settlement of certain contracts
traded on U.S. contract markets by means of foreign currency, certain
statements made relative to foreign location risk remain relevant
today. For example, in support of this Interpretation, the Commission
expressed its concern that ``in the event of an FCM insolvency,
deposits maintained at a foreign depository might not be handled or
distributed in accordance with United States bankruptcy law'' and that
``both the size of the pool of funds available for distribution to
customers and the size of individual claims against that pool may vary
from day-to-day.'' The Commission further stated that ``to the extent
foreign domiciled customers deposit [U.S.] dollars in connection with
United States futures or options, such funds should be held in the
United States'' because ``the Commission perceives no administrative
necessity for FCMs and customers to incur the location risks attendant
to holding such dollar deposits overseas''.24 Likewise, the
Commission is concerned that margin deposits maintained by a foreign
broker at a foreign depository might become unavailable in the event of
a bankruptcy of the clearing FCM due to differences in bankruptcy law
among jurisdictions and might be exposed to currency fluctuations
during the pendency of the bankruptcy. In addition, the Commission has
observed that in times of turbulent markets, such as occurred in
October 1987 and October 1989, accounts in the names of owners with
foreign addresses had greater difficulty meeting margin calls than did
domestic accounts, undoubtedly to some extent due to time zone
differences and currency conversion logistics.25 In this context,
the Commission has recognized that foreign brokers' omnibus accounts
carried by clearing FCMs can have a substantial impact on the financial
condition of clearing FCMs. Further, as a result of the collapse of
Barings PLC in February 1995, the Commission's concern has been
heightened with respect to FCMs having a clear view of the exposures in
omnibus accounts and the ability to assure proper handling and
segregation of customer funds.
\23\ Neither the proposing release nor the adopting release for
Rule 1.58 discuss omnibus accounts carried on behalf of foreign
brokers.
\24\ See 53 FR 46911 (Nov. 21, 1988), reprinted in 1 Comm. Fut.
L. Rep. (CCH) para. 7122.
\25\ See Final CFTC Staff Report, Stock Index Futures and Cash
Market Activity--October 1987, at pp. 192-193 (Jan. 1988) (reprinted
in Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH), Special Report No. 321, Feb. 5, 1988)
and Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Division of Economic
Analysis, Report on Stock Index Futures and Cash Market Activity
During October 1989 to the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, at p. 143 (May 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In view of the increasing internationalization of the financial
markets, and in particular the increasing use of foreign omnibus
accounts, the Commission believes that foreign broker omnibus accounts
should be treated in the same manner as omnibus accounts carried for
domestic FCMs. Thus, FCMs carrying foreign broker omnibus accounts
would hold a higher level of funds, have less capital exposure and be
better able to transfer positions from such accounts in the event of a
financial disruption. Accordingly, the Commission is proposing to
expand the application of Rule 1.58 to include foreign brokers' omnibus
accounts carried by FCMs. As is the case with the proposed amendments
to Rule 1.17 concerning the minimum amount of adjusted net capital for
FCMs and IBs, the Commission is essentially proposing to conform its
rule relating to collection of margins for omnibus accounts to the
industry practice since, as a result of staff recommendations in rule
enforcement reviews and SRO rule changes, all active U.S. contract
markets other than the New York Cotton Exchange and the Philadelphia
Board of Trade require that FCMs collect margin for omnibus accounts of
foreign brokers as well as other domestic FCMs on a gross basis.
IV. Other Matters
As noted above, the Commission held a roundtable on capital issues
on September 18, 1995, during which several matters were discussed.
Although the Commission is not presenting any specific rule proposals
at this time related to issues discussed at the roundtable, the
Commission will be seeking additional information concerning certain of
the issues discussed with a view towards possible additional rule
amendments. These issues would include greater harmonization of the
CFTC/SEC financial requirements in several areas such as reporting
requirements and cycles, early warning requirements,26 risk
assessment data elements and the debt-equity ratio requirements with
respect to a firm's capital.27 The
[[Page 63999]]
Commission is also considering a rethinking of the no-action relief
provided to an FCM by the Division with respect to the short options
value charge,28 and the appropriateness of a concentration charge.
Separately, the Commission has discussed with the Joint Audit Committee
the data necessary to evaluate any proposals for a ``risk-based''
standard as a component of the minimum adjusted net capital
requirements. Although the Commission has no specific proposals in any
of these areas at this time, it nonetheless invites commenters to
address these matters if they so choose.
\26\ The Commission has proposed amendments to its Rule 1.12 to:
(1) make paragraph (g), which requires the reporting of certain
reductions in adjusted net capital, applicable to all FCMs, rather
than just those FCMs subject to the risk assessment reporting
requirements of Rule 1.15; (2) require reporting of a margin call
that exceeds an FCM's excess adjusted net capital which remains
unanswered by the close of business on the day following the
issuance of the call; and (3) require reporting by an FCM whenever
its excess adjusted net capital is less than six percent of the
maintenance margin required to support proprietary and noncustomer
positions carried by the FCM. 59 FR 66822 (Dec. 28, 1994).
\27\ SEC Rule 15c3-1(d) (17 CFR 240.15c3-1(d) (1995)) requires
that at least 30 percent of all of a broker-dealer's net capital
consist of equity capital. See Report of the Technical Committee of
IOSCO, ``Capital Requirements for Multinational Securities Firms,''
XV Annual Conference of the International Organization of Securities
Commissions (IOSCO), Santiago, Chile 1990. The general international
standard in this connection, as recommended by Working Party No. 3
of the Technical Committee of IOSCO, would also apply the debt-
equity requirement to all of a firm's capital. Although the
Commission originally proposed a debt-equity requirement for an FCM
that would have been similar to that of a broker-dealer under SEC
rules (see 42 FR 27166, 27177 (May 26, 1977)), in response to
comments that ``it would be inappropriate to penalize a firm that
maintains capital in the form of satisfactory subordination
agreements, which is in excess of the minimum required by
regulations'', the Commission revised the required debt-equity total
to which the 30 percent equity capital requirement applies to mean
total capital less the excess of the FCM's adjusted net capital,
i.e., only the required minimum adjusted net capital. See 43 FR
39956, 39965, 39976 (Sept. 8, 1978).
\28\ Commission Rule 1.17(c)(5)(iii), 17 CFR 1.17(c)(5)(iii)
(1995); CFTC Interpretative Letter 95-65, [Current Binder] Comm.
Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) para. 26,495 (July 26, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Related Matters
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
requires that agencies, in proposing rules, consider the impact of
those rules on small businesses. The rule amendments proposed herein
would affect FCMs and independent IBs. The Commission has previously
determined that, based upon the fiduciary nature of FCM/customer
relationships, as well as the requirement that FCMs meet minimum
financial requirements, FCMs should be excluded from the definition of
small entity.29
\29\ See 47 FR 18618, 18619 (Apr. 30, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to IBs, the Commission stated that it is appropriate
to evaluate within the context of a particular rule proposal whether
some or all IBs should be considered to be small entities and, if so,
to analyze the economic impact on such entities at that time.30
The proposed amendment to Rule 1.17(h)(2)(vii) would generally reduce
the burden associated with the procedure to obtain approval for
permissive prepayment of subordinated debt. Accordingly, that amendment
should impose no additional requirements on an independent IB. In
addition, the proposed amendment to the minimum adjusted net capital
requirement for an IB would conform the Commission's requirement to
that of the NFA and therefore there should be no impact on an IB's
financial operations. Thus, if adopted, these proposals would not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of IBs.
Therefore, pursuant to Section 3(a) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the
Chairman certifies that these proposed rule amendments will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
\30\ See 48 FR 35248, 35275-78 (Aug. 3, 1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1990, (PRA) 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies (including the
Commission) in connection with their conducting or sponsoring any
collection of information as defined by the PRA. While the amendments
proposed herein have no burden,31 Rules 1.12, 1.17 and 1.58 are
parts of groups of rules with the following burdens.
\31\ The proposed increase in the dollar amount of minimum
adjusted net capital for an FCM and an IB would necessitate only a
change in line item 23E of the Statement of the Computation of
Minimum Capital Requirements on Form 1-FR-FCM and in line item 15 of
that Statement on Form 1-FR-IB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The burden associated with the collection required by Rules 1.12
and 1.17 (3038-0024), including these proposed amendments, is as
follows:
Average Burden Hours Per Response: 1.50.
Number of FCM Respondents: 165.00.
Number of IB Respondents: 62.00.
Frequency of Response: 1.00.
The burden associated with the collection required by Rule 1.58
(3038-0026), including these proposed amendments, is as follows:
A. Reporting
Average Burden Hours Per Response: 0.04.
Number of Respondents: 100.00.
Frequency of Response: 50.00.
B. Recordkeeping
Average Burden Hours Per Response: 1.00.
Number of Respondents: 300.00.
Frequency of Response: 1.00.
Persons wishing to comment on the estimated paperwork burden
associated with these proposed rule amendments should contact Jeff
Hill, Office of Management and Budget, Room 3228, NEOB, Washington, DC
20503, (202) 395-7340. Copies of the information collection submission
to OMB are available from Joe F. Mink, CFTC Clearance Officer, 1155
21st Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20581, (202) 418-5170.
List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 1
Commodity futures, minimum financial requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing and pursuant to the authority
contained in the Commodity Exchange Act and, in particular, Sections
4f, 4g and 8a(5) thereof, 7 U.S.C. 6f, 6g and 12a(5), the Commission
hereby proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 17 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 1--GENERAL REGULATIONS UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT
1. The authority citation for Part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 2a, 4, 4a, 6, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f,
6g, 6h, 6i, 6j, 6k, 6l, 6m, 6n, 6o, 6p, 7, 7a, 7b, 8, 9, 12, 12a,
12c, 13a, 13a-1, 16, 16a, 19, 21, 23 and 24.
2. Section 1.12 is amended by removing the word ``or'' at the end
of paragraph (b)(2), by redesignating paragraph (b)(3) as paragraph
(b)(4), and by adding a new paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.12 Maintenance of minimum financial requirements by futures
commission merchants and introducing brokers.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) 150 percent of the amount of adjusted net capital required by a
registered futures association of which it is a member; or
* * * * *
3. Section 1.17 is amended as follows:
3.1. By revising paragraph (a)(1);
3.2. By removing the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph
(e)(1)(ii), by redesignating paragraph (e)(1)(iii) as (e)(1)(iv), and
by adding a new paragraph (e)(1)(iii);
3.3. By removing the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph
(h)(2)(vi)(C)(2), by redesignating paragraph (h)(2)(vi)(C)(3) as
paragraph (h)(2)(vi)(C)(4), and by adding a new paragraph
(h)(2)(vi)(C)(3);
3.4. By removing the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph
(h)(2)(vii)(A)(2), by redesignating paragraph (h)(2)(vii)(A)(3) as
paragraph (h)(2)(vii)(A)(4) and, as redesignated, revising it, and by
adding a new paragraph (h)(2)(vii)(A)(3);
3.5. By removing the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph
(h)(2)(vii)(B)(2), by redesignating paragraph (h)(2)(vii)(B)(3) as
paragraph (h)(2)(vii)(B)(4) and, as redesignated, revising it, and by
adding new paragraphs (h)(2)(vii)(B)(3) and (h)(2)(vii)(C);
3.6. By removing the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph
(h)(2)(viii)(A)(2), by redesignating paragraph (h)(2)(viii)(A)(3) as
paragraph
[[Page 64000]]
(h)(2)(viii)(A)(4), and by adding a new paragraph (h)(2)(viii)(A)(3);
3.7. By removing the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph
(h)(3)(ii)(B), by redesignating paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(C) as paragraph
(h)(3)(ii)(D), and by adding a new paragraph (h)(3)(ii)(C); and
3.8. By redesignating paragraphs (h)(3)(v) (C) and (D) as
paragraphs (h)(3)(v) (D) and (E) and by adding a new paragraph
(h)(3)(v)(C). The revised and added paragraphs read as follows:
Sec. 1.17 Minimum financial requirements for futures commission
merchants and introducing brokers.
(a)(1)(i) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this
section, each person registered as a futures commission merchant must
maintain adjusted net capital equal to or in excess of the greatest of:
(A) $250,000;
(B) Four percent of the following amount: The customer funds
required to be segregated pursuant to the Act and these regulations and
the foreign futures or foreign options secured amount, less the market
value of commodity options purchased by customers on or subject to the
rules of a contract market or a foreign board of trade: Provided,
however, That the deduction for each customer shall be limited to the
amount of customer funds in such customer's account(s) and foreign
futures and foreign options secured amounts;
(C) The amount of adjusted net capital required by a registered
futures association of which it is a member; or
(D) For securities brokers and dealers, the amount of net capital
required by Rule 15c3-1(a), of the Securities and Exchange Commission
(17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)).
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, each
person registered as an introducing broker must maintain adjusted net
capital equal to or in excess of the greatest of:
(A) $30,000;
(B) The amount of adjusted net capital required by a registered
futures association of which it is a member; or
(C) For securities brokers and dealers, the amount of net capital
required by Rule 15c3-1(a) of the Securities and Exchange Commission
(17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)).
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) 120 percent of the amount of adjusted net capital required by
a registered futures association of which it is a member; or
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) * * *
(C) * * *
(3) 120 percent of the amount of adjusted net capital required by a
registered futures association of which it is a member; or
* * * * *
(vii) * * *
(A) * * *
(3) 120 percent of the amount of adjusted net capital required by a
registered futures association of which it is a member; or
(4) For an applicant or registrant which is also a securities
broker or dealer, the amount of net capital specified in Rule 15c3-
1d(b)(7) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (17 CFR 240.15c3-
1d(b)(7)).
(B) * * *
(3) 120 percent of the amount of adjusted net capital required by a
registered futures association of which it is a member; or
(4) For an applicant or registrant which is also a securities
broker or dealer, the amount of net capital specified in Rule 15c3-
1d(c)(5)(ii) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (17 CFR
240.15c3-1d(c)(5)(ii)): Provided, however, That no special prepayment
shall be made if pre-tax losses during the latest three-month period
were greater than 15 percent of current excess adjusted net capital.
(C) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (h)(2)(vii)(A) and
(h)(2)(vii)(B) of this section, in the case of an applicant, no
prepayment or special prepayment shall occur without the prior written
approval of the National Futures Association; in the case of a
registrant, if the requested prepayment or special prepayment will
result in the reduction of the registrant's adjusted net capital by 20
percent or more, no prepayment or special prepayment shall occur
without the prior written approval of the designated self-regulatory
organization, if any, and of the Commission, or, if the requested
prepayment or special prepayment will result in the reduction of the
registrant's adjusted net capital by less than 20 percent without the
prior written approval of the designated self-regulatory organization,
if any, or of the Commission if the registrant is not a member of a
self-regulatory organization.
(viii) * * *
(A) * * *
(3) 120 percent of the amount of adjusted net capital required by a
registered futures association of which it is a member; or
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) 120 percent of the amount of adjusted net capital required by a
registered futures association of which it is a member; or
* * * * *
(v) * * *
(C) 120 percent of the amount of adjusted net capital required by a
registered futures association of which it is a member;
* * * * *
4. Section 1.58 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1.58 Gross collection of exchange-set margins.
(a) Each futures commission merchant which carries a commodity
futures or commodity option position for another futures commission
merchant or for a foreign broker on an omnibus basis must collect, and
each futures commission merchant and foreign broker for which an
omnibus account is being carried must deposit, initial and maintenance
margin on each position reported in accordance with Sec. 17.04 of this
chapter at a level no less than that established for customer accounts
by the rules of the applicable contract market.
(b) If the futures commission merchant which carries a commodity
futures or commodity option position for another futures commission
merchant or for a foreign broker on an omnibus basis allows a position
to be margined as a spread position or as a hedged position in
accordance with the rules of the applicable contract market, the
carrying futures commission merchant must obtain and retain a written
representation from the futures commission merchant or from the foreign
broker for which the omnibus account is being carried that each such
position is entitled to be so margined.
Issued in Washington, D.C. on December 7, 1995 by the
Commission.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 95-30360 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30354 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63991-63993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30354]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63992]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-244-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to all Boeing Model 767 series
airplanes. This proposal would require inspections of the components of
the leading edge outboard slat; replacement of the control rod end, if
necessary; and various follow-on actions. This proposal is prompted by
reports of skewed panels of the outboard leading edge slat due to
either corrosion of the rotary actuator, cracking of the control rod,
or incorrect clearance of the overtravel stop of the outboard leading
edge slat. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to
prevent such conditions, which could result in reduced controllability
of the airplane and damage to or cracking of the leading edge slats or
the fixed leading edge of the wing.
DATES: Comments must be received by January 24, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-244-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location
between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Larson, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington;
telephone (206) 227-1760; fax (206) 227-1181.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-244-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-NM-244-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
The FAA has received reports of skewed panels of the outboard
leading edge slat on several Boeing Model 767 series airplanes.
Investigation revealed that the cause of the skewed panels is
attributed to either corrosion of the rotary actuator, cracking of the
control rod, or incorrect clearance of the overtravel stop of the
outboard leading edge slat. These conditions, if not detected and
corrected in a timely manner, could result in reduced controllability
of the airplane and damage to or cracking of the leading edge slats or
the fixed leading edge of the wing.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the FAA
has determined that an airworthiness directive (AD) is warranted to
require the following inspections and follow-on actions of the affected
airplanes. These actions are necessary in order to ensure that the
unsafe condition is corrected, and to provide an acceptable level of
safety:
1. A visual inspection to verify proper clearance of the overtravel
stop;
2. Adjustment of the stop clearance, and replacement of the rotary
actuator and adjacent offset gearbox, if necessary;
3. Repetitive visual inspections to detect external signs of
internal corrosion of the rotary actuator of the outboard leading edge
slat;
4. Replacement of a certain earlier model rotary actuator with a
certain later model rotary actuator, for certain airplanes;
5. Visual inspection(s) to verify proper installation of the
control rods of the outboard leading edge slats; and
6. Tightening of the bolts or installing a new lockwire, if any
bolt is loose or any lockwire is missing.
This proposed AD would require that these actions be accomplished
at specific times and in accordance with the procedures specified in
the Boeing 767 Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM), Chapter 27-81-20.
This is considered to be interim action. The manufacturer has
advised that it currently is developing a modification that will
positively address the unsafe condition that is the subject of this AD.
Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, the FAA
may consider additional rulemaking.
There are approximately 612 Model 767 series airplanes of the
affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 213
airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that
it would take approximately 14 work hours per airplane to accomplish
the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work
hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators is estimated to be $178,920, or $840 per airplane, per
inspection cycle.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of
this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in
the future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if
[[Page 63993]]
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory
evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A
copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the
location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Boeing: Docket 95-NM-244-AD.
Applicability: All Model 767 series airplanes, certificated in
any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the authority
provided in paragraph (d) of this AD to request approval from the
FAA. This approval may address either no action, if the current
configuration eliminates the unsafe condition; or different actions
necessary to address the unsafe condition described in this AD. Such
a request should include an assessment of the effect of the changed
configuration on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no
case does the presence of any modification, alteration, or repair
remove any airplane from the applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent reduced controllability of the airplane and damage to
or cracking of the leading edge slats or the fixed leading edge of
the wing, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 500 hours time-in-service after the effective date of
this AD, unless previously accomplished within the last 3,000 hours
time-in-service prior to the effective date of this AD: Perform a
visual inspection to verify proper clearance of the overtravel stop,
in accordance with the Boeing 767 Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM),
Chapter 27-81-20.
(1) If proper clearance exists, repeat the inspection for proper
clearance thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 hours time-in-
service or 18 months, whichever occurs later.
(2) If clearance exists, but is incorrect, at the next
convenient maintenance interval, but no later than 500 flight hours
after accomplishment of the inspection, adjust the stop clearance
for the slats in accordance with the AMM. Repeat the inspection for
proper clearance thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 hours
time-in-service or 18 months, whichever occurs later.
(3) If no clearance exists (i.e., stop contact), prior to
further flight, adjust the stop clearance for the slats in
accordance with the AMM. After the adjustment, within 3,000 hours
time-in-service or 1,500 flight cycles after accomplishing the
inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD, whichever occurs
later, replace the rotary actuator and adjacent offset gearbox in
accordance with the AMM. After replacement, repeat the inspection
for proper clearance at intervals not to exceed 6,000 hours time-in-
service or 18 months, whichever occurs later.
(b) Within 500 hours time-in-service after the effective date of
this AD, unless previously accomplished within the last 3,000 hours
time-in-service prior to the effective date of this AD, perform a
visual inspection to detect external signs of internal corrosion of
the rotary actuator of the outboard leading edge slat, in accordance
with the Boeing 767 Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM), Chapter 27-
81-20.
(1) If no sign of internal corrosion is detected, accomplish
paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) For airplanes on which a rotary actuator having part number
(P/N) 256T2120-3 or earlier is installed: Within 4,000 flight hours
after the effective date of this AD, replace that rotary actuator
with a new rotary actuator having P/N 256T2120-5 or later. After
replacement, repeat the inspection of the rotary actuator at
intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 18 months, whichever
occurs later.
(ii) For airplanes on which a rotary actuator having P/N
256T2120-5 or later is installed: Repeat the inspection of the
rotary actuator thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight
hours or 18 months, whichever occurs later.
(2) If any sign of internal corrosion is detected, accomplish
paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (b)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) For airplanes on which a rotary actuator having part number
(P/N) 256T2120-3 or earlier is installed: Within 4,000 flight hours
after the effective date of this AD, replace that rotary actuator
with a new rotary actuator having P/N 256T2120-5 or later. After
replacement, repeat the inspection of the rotary actuator at
intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 18 months, whichever
occurs later.
(ii) For airplanes on which a rotary actuator having P/N
256T2120-5 or later is installed: Within 6,000 flight hours or 18
months after accomplishing the initial inspection required by
paragraph (b) of this AD, replace that rotary actuator with a new
rotary actuator having P/N 256T2120-5 or later. After replacement,
repeat the inspection required of the rotary actuator at intervals
not to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 18 months, whichever occurs
later.
(c) Within 500 hours time-in-service after the effective date of
this AD, unless previously accomplished within the last 3,000 hours
time-in-service prior to the effective date of this AD, perform a
visual inspection to verify proper installation (including loose
bolts and missing lockwires) of the control rods of the outboard
leading edge slats, in accordance with the Boeing 767 Airplane
Maintenance Manual (AMM), Chapter 27-81-20.
(1) If all control rods are installed properly, repeat the
inspection to verify proper installation thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 18 months, whichever occurs later.
(2) If any bolt is loose or any lockwire missing, prior to
further flight, tighten the bolt or install a new lockwire, in
accordance with the AMM. Repeat the inspection to verify proper
installation thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight
hours or 18 months, whichever occurs later.
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Seattle ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Seattle ACO.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 7, 1995.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-30354 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30353 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63989-63991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30353]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63990]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-124-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the supersedure of an existing
airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Boeing Model 767
series airplanes, that currently requires an inspection of the control
rods of the outboard leading edge slat, and follow-on actions
(including repetitive ultrasonic inspections), if necessary. That AD
also requires replacement of the control rod ends and attach bolts for
certain airplanes. It also provides for an optional terminating action
for follow-on repetitive inspections. That AD was prompted by reports
of cracks and worn attach bolts of the control rods of the leading edge
outboards slats of the wings due to the high breakout torque in the
joint of the control rod end. This action would require installation of
the previously optional terminating action. The actions specified by
the proposed AD are intended to prevent reduced controllability of the
airplane and damage in the slat structure or fixed leading edge of the
wing, as a result of cracks and worn attach bolts.
DATES: Comments must be received by January 24, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-124-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this
location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The service information referenced in the proposed
rule may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box
3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Larson, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington;
telephone (206) 227-1760; fax (206) 227-1181.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-124-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-NM-124-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
On September 5, 1990, the FAA issued AD 90-20-16, amendment 39-6726
(55 FR 37858, September 14, 1990), applicable to certain Boeing Model
767 series airplanes, to require a one-time visual inspection to
determine the date of manufacture of the control rods of the outboard
leading edge slat, and follow-on actions, if necessary. Certain of the
follow-on actions entail performing repetitive ultrasonic inspections
of the control rods. That AD also requires replacement of the control
rod ends and attach bolts, for certain airplanes. It also provided for
an optional terminating action for the follow-on repetitive
inspections. That action was prompted by a report that certain
airplanes could be operating with control rods of the outboard leading
edge slat that are subject to cracking. The requirements of that AD are
intended to prevent the loss of the pilot's ability to control the
affected slat, which could adversely affect the controllability of the
airplane.
Since the issuance of that AD, the FAA has reviewed and approved
Revision 5 of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57-0021, dated June 15, 1995.
The one-time visual inspection and the replacement of the control rod
ends and attach bolts procedures described in this revision are
essentially identical to those described in Revision 1 and Revision 2
of the service bulletin (which were referenced in AD 90-20-16). For
certain airplanes, Revision 5 of the service bulletin describes
procedures for replacement of the control rod with a control rod that
has been manufactured after June 1983. The control rod ends of these
newer control rods have improved bearings and chrome plated bolts, and
a lower break-out torque, all of which will reduce wear of the attach
bolts of the control rods. Accomplishment of this replacement
eliminates the need for the (follow-on) repetitive ultrasonic
inspections described in Revision 1 and Revision 2 of the service
bulletin.
The FAA has determined that accomplishment of the replacement of
the control rod with a new control rod that has been manufactured after
June 1983, will positively address the unsafe condition identified as
loss of the pilot's ability to control the affected slat, which could
adversely affect the controllability of the airplane.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the
proposed AD would supersede AD 90-20-16. It would continue to require a
one-time visual inspection to determine the date of manufacture of the
control rods of the outboard leading edge slat, and follow-on actions
(i.e., repetitive ultrasonic inspection), if necessary. The proposed AD
would also continue to require replacement of the control rod ends and
attach bolts, for certain airplanes. For operators accomplishing the
(follow-on) repetitive ultrasonic inspections, the proposed AD would
require replacement of the control rod with a new control rod
manufactured after June 1983; this replacement would constitute
terminating action for the repetitive inspections. The actions would be
required to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletins
described previously.
There are approximately 271 Model 767 series airplanes of the
affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 193
airplanes of U.S.
[[Page 63991]]
registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
The actions that are currently required by AD 90-20-16 take
approximately 21 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average
labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts cost approximately
$5,500 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact on U.S.
operators of the actions currently required is estimated to be
$1,304,680, or $6,760 per airplane.
For certain affected airplanes, the new replacement (terminating)
action that is proposed in this AD would take approximately 1 work hour
per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work
hour. The cost of required replacement parts is estimated to be $5,500
per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact on U.S. operators
of the proposed requirements of this AD is estimated to be $5,560 per
airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the current or proposed
requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish
those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-6726 (55 FR
37858, September 14, 1990), and by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD), to read as follows:
Boeing: Docket 95-NM-124-AD. Supersedes AD 90-20-16, Amendment 39-
6726.
Applicability: Model 767 series airplanes, as listed in Boeing
Service Bulletin 767-57-0021, Revision 1, dated September 14, 1989,
or Revision 5, dated June 15, 1995; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the authority
provided in paragraph (c) of this AD to request approval from the
FAA. This approval may address either no action, if the current
configuration eliminates the unsafe condition; or different actions
necessary to address the unsafe condition described in this AD. Such
a request should include an assessment of the effect of the changed
configuration on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no
case does the presence of any modification, alteration, or repair
remove any airplane from the applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously. To prevent loss of the pilot's ability to control the
affected slat, which could adversely affect the controllability of
the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) For airplanes having line positions 1 through 235 inclusive:
Within the next 1,200 landings or 9 months after October 23, 1990
(the effective date of AD 90-20-16, amendment 39-6726), whichever
occurs first, unless accomplished within the last 800 landings or 6
months, whichever occurs later, perform a visual inspection to
determine the date of manufacture of the control rods of the
outboard leading edge slat of the wings, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57-0021,
dated August 25, 1988; Revision 1, dated September 14, 1989;
Revision 2, dated July 26, 1990; or Revision 5, dated June 15, 1995.
(1) If the date of manufacture (stamped on the control rod) is
June 1983 or later, no further action is required by this paragraph.
(2) If the date of manufacture is illegible or is prior to June
1983, accomplish paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Prior to further flight, perform an ultrasonic inspection to
detect cracks of the control rods in accordance with Figure 1 of
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57-0021, dated August 25, 1988, Revision
1, dated September 14, 1989, or Revision 2, dated July 26, 1990. If
any crack or fracture is detected, prior to further flight, replace
it in accordance with Figure 2 of the service bulletin. Repeat the
ultrasonic inspection of the control rods manufactured prior to June
1983 thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 landings or 15
months, whichever occurs first, until the replacement required by
paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this AD is accomplished.
(ii) Within 3,000 flight hours or 15 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later, replace the control rod
with a new rod manufactured June 1983 or later, in accordance with
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57-0021, Revision 5, dated June 15,
1995. Accomplishment of this replacement constitutes terminating
action for the repetitive inspection requirement of paragraph
(a)(2)(i) of this AD.
(b) For airplanes having line number 1 through 264 inclusive,
and 266 through 273 inclusive: Within the next 2,500 landings or 18
months after October 23, 1990 (the effective date of AD 90-20-16,
amendment 39-6726, whichever occurs first, replace the control rod
end and attach bolt with a new configuration control rod end and
attach bolt on each wing, in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin
767-57-0221, Revision 1, dated September 14, 1989; Revision 2, dated
July 26, 1990; or Revision 5, dated June 15, 1995.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Seattle ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Seattle ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 7, 1995.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-30353 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30352 Airworthiness Directives; Hamilton Standard 14RF and 14SF Series, and Hamilton Standard/British Aerospace Model 6/5500/F Propellers
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63988-63989]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30352]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-ANE-66]
Airworthiness Directives; Hamilton Standard 14RF and 14SF Series,
and Hamilton Standard/British Aerospace Model 6/5500/F Propellers
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to Hamilton Standard 14RF and 14SF
series, and Hamilton Standard/British Aerospace Model 6/5500/F
propellers. This proposal would require initial and repetitive
inspections of critical components, and removal, and replacement with
serviceable parts, of those critical components that do not meet the
return to service criteria. This proposal is prompted by failure modes
effects analysis (FMEA), certification test data, engineering analysis,
and repair actions performed at overhaul depots. The actions specified
by the proposed AD are intended to prevent loss of propeller control
due to failure of critical components, which could result in loss of
control of the aircraft.
DATES: Comments must be received by February 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), New England Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 95- ANE-66, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803- 5299. Comments may be inspected
at this location between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Hamilton Standard, One Hamilton Road, Windsor Locks, CT
06096-1010. This information may be examined at the FAA, New England
Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, 12 New England Executive
Park, Burlington, MA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Walsh, Aerospace Engineer,
Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299;
telephone (617) 238-7158, fax (617) 238-7199.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-ANE-66.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-ANE-66, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803-5299.
Discussion
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Hamilton Standard
have identified critical aspects of the transfer tube assembly,
actuator assembly, and propeller control unit (PCU) for Hamilton
Standard Models 14RF-9, 14RF-19, 14RF-21; 14SF-5, 14SF-7, 14SF-11,
14SF-11L, 14SF-15, 14SF-17, 14SF-19, 14SF-23; and Hamilton Standard/
British Aerospace 6/5500/F propellers. A continuous airworthiness
requirement for inspection of those critical aspects of the transfer
tube assembly, actuator assembly, and PCU for wear is required to
ensure continued safe operation between inspections. The inspection
intervals and inspection criteria have been generated by failure modes
effects analysis (FMEA), certification test data, engineering analysis,
and repair actions performed at overhaul depots. This condition, if not
corrected, could result in loss of propeller control due to failure of
critical components, which could result in loss of control of the
aircraft.
The FAA has reviewed and approved the technical contents of the
following Hamilton Standard Service Bulletins (SB's), all dated
November 29, 1995, that describe procedures for initial and repetitive
inspections of critical components: 14RF-9-61-64, 14RF-19-61-32, 14RF-
21-61-51, 14SF-61-70, and 6/5500/F-61-25.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the
proposed AD would
[[Page 63989]]
require initial and repetitive inspections of critical aspects of the
transfer tube assembly, actuator assembly, and PCU for wear. This AD
would also require, prior to further flight, removing and replacement
with serviceable parts those critical components that do not meet the
return to service criteria. The actions would be required to be
accomplished in accordance with the SB's described previously.
There are approximately 2,900 propellers of the affected design in
the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 1,350 propellers installed
on aircraft of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD,
that it would take approximately 4.3 work hours per propeller to
accomplish the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $60
per work hour. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the
proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $348,300.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Hamilton Standard: Docket No. 95-ANE-66.
Applicability: Hamilton Standard Models 14RF-9, 14RF-19, 14RF-
21, and 14SF-5, 14SF-7, 14SF-11, 14SF-11L, 14SF-15, 14SF-17, 14SF-
19, 14SF-23 and Hamilton Standard/British Aerospace 6/5500/F
propellers installed on but not limited to Embraer EMB-120 and EMB-
120-RT; SAAB-SCANIA SF 340B; Aerospatiale ATR42-100, ATR42-300,
ATR42-320, ATR72; DeHavilland DHC-8-100 series, DHC-8-300 Series;
Construcciones Aeronauticas SA (CASA) CN-235 series and CN-235-100;
Canadair CL-215T an CL-415; and British Aerospace ATP Airplanes.
Note: This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to each
propeller identified in the preceding applicability provision,
regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in
the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For propellers that
have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of
the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use
the authority provided in paragraph (e) to request approval from the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This approval may address
either no action, if the current configuration eliminates the unsafe
condition, or different actions necessary to address the unsafe
condition described in this AD. Such a request should include an
assessment of the effect of the changed configuration on the unsafe
condition addressed by this AD. In no case does the presence of any
modification, alteration, or repair remove any propeller from the
applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent loss of propeller control due to failure of critical
components, which could result in loss of control of the aircraft,
accomplish the following:
(a) For those propellers with transfer tube assemblies, actuator
assemblies, and propeller control units (PCU's) with greater than or
equal to 15,500 hours time in service (TIS), or unknown TIS, on the
effective date of this AD, inspect for wear within 1,000 hours TIS
after the effective date of this AD. Perform inspections of the
critical aspects of these components in accordance with the
applicable service bulletins (SB's) listed in paragraph (d) of this
AD. Thereafter, inspect at intervals not to exceed 10,500 hours TIS
since last inspection. Prior to further flight, remove and replace
with serviceable parts those components that do not meet the return
to service criteria defined in the applicable SB's.
(b) For those propellers with transfer tube assemblies, actuator
assemblies, and PCU's with greater than or equal to 10,500 hours TIS
but less than 15,500 hours TIS on the effective date of this AD,
inspect for wear within 1,000 hours TIS after the effective date of
this AD, or prior to accumulating 16,500 hours TIS, whichever occurs
later. Perform inspections of the critical aspects of these
components in accordance with the applicable SB's listed in
paragraph (d) of this AD. Thereafter, inspect at intervals not to
exceed 10,500 hours TIS since last inspection. Prior to further
flight, remove and replace with serviceable parts those components
that do not meet the return to service criteria defined in the
applicable SB's.
(c) For those propellers with transfer tube assemblies, actuator
assemblies, and PCU's with less than 10,500 hours TIS on the
effective date of this AD, inspect for wear within 6,000 hours TIS
after the effective date of this AD, or prior to accumulating 10,500
hours TIS, whichever occurs later. Perform inspections of the
critical aspects of these components in accordance with the
applicable SB's listed in paragraph (d) of this AD. Thereafter,
inspect at intervals not to exceed 10,500 hours TIS since last
inspection. Prior to further flight, remove and replace with
serviceable parts those components that do not meet the return to
service criteria defined in the applicable SB's.
(d) Perform the inspections for wear required by this AD in
accordance with, and use the return to service criteria defined in,
the following applicable Hamilton Standard SB's, all dated November
29, 1995: 14RF-9-61-64, 14RF-19-61-32, 14RF-21-61-51, 14SF-61-70,
and 6/5500/F-61-2.
(e) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification
Office. The request should be forwarded through an appropriate FAA
Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send
it to the Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office.
Note: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this airworthiness directive,
if any, may be obtained from the Boston Aircraft Certification
Office.
(f) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to a location where
the inspection requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on December 6, 1995.
James C. Jones,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 95-30352 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30351 Amendments to Gas Valuation Regulations for Federal Leases
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64000-64001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30351]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service
30 CFR Parts 202, 206, and 211
RIN 1010-AC02
Amendments to Gas Valuation Regulations for Federal Leases
AGENCY: Minerals Management Service, Interior.
[[Page 64001]]
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of meeting and extension of comment
period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Minerals Management Service (MMS) is scheduling a public
meeting to receive comments on a proposed rulemaking, which was
published in the Federal Register on November 6, 1995 (60 FR 56007).
MMS is also extending the public comment period for the proposed
rulemaking. The proposed rule would implement the recommendations of
the Federal Gas Valuation Negotiated Rulemaking Committee by amending
the regulations governing the value of gas produced from Federal
leases. MMS will hold the public meeting in Houston, Texas, on January
22, and, if necessary on the 23rd, 1996. The meeting will allow
interested parties an opportunity to provide direct feedback to MMS
officials regarding the proposed rule. Interested parties are invited
to attend and participate at this meeting. MMS is also extending the
comment period for the proposed rule from January 5, 1996, to February
5, 1996.
DATES: A public meeting will be held on Monday January 22, and if
necessary, on Tuesday January 23, 1996, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m.
Comments must be received on or before February 5, 1996.
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. Comments should
be sent to: 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 (303)
231-3194, e-Mail David__G[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David S. Guzy, Chief, Rules and
Procedures Staff, Minerals Management Service, Royalty Management
Program, telephone (303) 231-3432, fax (303) 231-3194, e-Mail
David__G[email protected]. If you plan to attend the meeting, please
contact Larry Cobb of the Valuation and Standards Division at telephone
(303) 275-7245, fax (303) 275-7227, e-mail Larry__C[email protected]
prior to January 12, 1996.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public
without advance registration. However, anyone that will be attending
the meeting is encouraged to call Larry Cobb so MMS can arrange the
room seating requirements. 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: December 6, 1995.
Kenneth R. Vogel,
Acting Associate Director for Royalty Management.
[FR Doc. 95-30351 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30343 Student Support Services Program
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64108-64113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30343]
[[Page 64107]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
34 CFR Part 646
Student Support Services Program; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 15, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 64108]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 646
RIN 1840-AC24
Student Support Services Program
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations governing the
Student Support Services Program. The proposed regulations clarify and
simplify requirements governing the program. The selection criteria,
prior experience criteria, and grantee accountability provisions are
affected by these proposed changes.
The Student Support Services Program supports the educational needs
of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Performance outcomes for
the program are designed to demonstrate the progress and performance of
eligible students in successfully completing their postsecondary
education.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: All comments concerning these proposed regulations should be
addressed to Richard T. Sonnergren, U.S. Department of Education, 600
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20202-5249. Comments may
also be sent through the Internet to [email protected]
To ensure that public comments have maximum effect in developing
the final regulations, the Department urges that each comment clearly
identify the specific section or sections of the regulations that the
comment addresses and that comments be in the same order as the
regulations.
Comments that concern information collection requirements must be
sent to the Office of Management and Budget at the address listed in
the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this preamble. A copy of those
comments may also be sent to the Department representative named in the
preceding paragraph.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Virginia A. Mason, Division of Student
Services, U.S. Department of Education, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W.,
The Portals Building, Suite 600D, Washington, D.C. 20202-5249.
Telephone: (202) 708-4804. Individuals who use telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay
Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
time, Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Student Support Services program provides grants to
institutions of higher education for projects offering support services
to low-income, first generation, or disabled college students. These
support services should enhance their academic skills, increase their
retention and graduation rates, facilitate their entrance into four-
year colleges or graduate and professional programs, and foster an
institutional climate supportive of the success of low-income and first
generation college students and students with disabilities.
Projects assisted under this program may provide: (1) Instruction
in reading, writing, study skills, mathematics, and other subjects
necessary for success beyond high school; (2) personal counseling; (3)
academic advice and assistance in course selection; (4) tutorial
services and peer counseling; (5) exposure to cultural events and
academic programs not usually available to disadvantaged students; (6)
activities designed to assist students participating in the project in
securing admission and financial assistance for enrollment in graduate
and professional programs; (7) activities designed to assist students
currently enrolled in two-year institutions in securing admission and
financial assistance for enrollment in a four-year program of
postsecondary education; (8) mentoring programs involving faculty or
upper class students, or a combination thereof; and (9) programs and
activities specially designed for students of limited proficiency in
English.
These proposed regulations have been revised to address the
President's regulatory reinvention initiative. Specifically,
Secs. 646.7, 646.10, 646.20, 646.21, 646.22 and 646.32 simplify the
selection criteria and increase grantee accountability through revised
prior experience criteria and stronger project evaluation requirements.
On October 1, 1993, the Secretary published revisions to the Student
Support Services Program regulations to implement changes required by
the Higher Education Amendments of 1992 (58 FR 51521-22). This notice
of proposed rulemaking proposes program improvements that were not
covered by the October 1, 1993 regulations. Major changes in the
current regulations are proposed in the following sections:
Definitions (Sec. 646.6). These regulations would provide
definitions for terms used in the program statute and these proposed
regulations. The following definitions have been added: academic need,
different campus, different population of participants, combination of
institutions of higher education, participant, sufficient financial
assistance. In addition, we have revised the definition of the term
``limited proficiency in English.'' These definitions are needed to
provide standard definitions used in data collection instruments and to
implement changes required by the 1992 Higher Education Amendments.
Specifically, the definitions for ``academic need'' and ``sufficient
financial assistance'' are intended to ensure grantees the flexibility
to customize their projects to meet the special needs of the
participants served. The definitions for ``different campus'' and
``different population of participants'' are intended to implement
policies and practices that have been used in governing the program.
The term ``limited proficiency in English'' is defined to provide
clarity and intended to be more practical.
Selection criteria (Sec. 646.21). The proposed regulations
would revise the application selection criteria to simplify and clarify
the requirements and increase grantee accountability by establishing
performance indicators and a standard for evaluating project services.
Prior experience (Sec. 646.22). The proposed regulations
would revise the criteria for the evaluation of a grantee's prior
experience to focus on project outcomes. The changes are intended to
eliminate data requested on administrative compliance matters and
collect only the information necessary to assess the impact of services
on project outcomes.
Other requirements of a grantee (Sec. 646.32). The
proposed regulations would prohibit a grantee from serving any
individual who is simultaneously receiving services from another
Federal TRIO program and would clarify provisions for project
coordination. In addition, the proposed regulations would require
grantees to track student performance and define the basis for
determining academic need. These regulations are needed to assist
projects with the implementation of the statutory provision to
coordinate services with similar programs and provide parameters for
collecting the types of information projects need to evaluate services.
The uniformity in student service delivery and evaluation are expected
to allow the Secretary to more effectively assess the impact of the
program.
[[Page 64109]]
Executive Order 12866
Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comments on how to make these regulations
easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the
following: (1) Are the requirements in the regulations clearly stated?
(2) Do the regulations contain technical terms or other wording that
interferes with their clarity? (3) Does the format of the regulations
(grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.)
aid or reduce their clarity? Would the regulations be easier to
understand if they were divided into more (but shorter) sections? (A
``section'' is preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered heading;
for example, Sec. 646.20 How does the Secretary decide which new grants
to make? (4) Is the description of the proposed regulations in the
``Supplementary Information'' section of this preamble helpful in
understanding the proposed regulations? How could this description be
more helpful in making the proposed regulations easier to understand?
(5) What else could the Department do to make the regulations easier to
understand?
A copy of any comments that concern whether these proposed
regulations are easy to understand should be sent to Stanley Cohen,
Regulations Quality Officer, U.S. Department of Education, 600
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20202-2241.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The small entities that would be affected by these
regulations are small institutions of higher education that receive
Federal funds under this program.
However, the regulations would not have a significant economic
impact on the small entities affected because the regulations would not
impose excessive regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal
supervision. The regulations would impose minimal requirements to
ensure the proper expenditure of program funds.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Sections 646.11, 646.21, 646.22, and 646.32 contain information
collection requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department of Education has submitted a
copy of these sections to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
its review.
Collection of Information: Student Support Services Program--
Program Regulations.
Institutions of higher education and combinations of those
institutions are eligible to apply for grants under these regulations.
The information to be collected includes: assurances to meet certain
statutory requirements; a description of each proposed project;
specific information regarding each project (such as the need for the
project, proposed collaboration with similar or related projects;
criteria to be used to measure progress and outcomes, data regarding
persons to be served); and information to be included in an annual
report to the Secretary. The Department needs and uses the information
to make grants.
All information is to be collected annually from each applicant.
Annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 20 hours for each response for 706
respondents, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information. Thus, the total
annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection is
estimated to be 14,120 hours.
Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
information collection requirement should direct them to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 10235, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Attention: Desk Officer for U.S.
Department of Education.
The Department considers comments by the public on this proposed
collection of information in--
Evaluating whether the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility;
Evaluating the accuracy of the Department's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other collection techniques or
other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect
if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect
the deadline for the public to comment to the Department on the
proposed regulations.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. The objective of the
Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and
local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
In accordance with the order, this document is intended to provide
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for
this program.
Invitation to Comment
Interested persons are invited to submit comments and
recommendations regarding these proposed regulations.
All comments submitted in response to these proposed regulations
will be available for public inspection during and after the comment
period at 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW., The Portals Building, Suite 600D,
Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
Assessment of Educational Impact
The Secretary particularly requests comments on whether the
proposed regulations in this document would require transmission of
information that is being gathered by or is available from any other
agency or authority of the United States.
List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 646
Colleges and universities, Disadvantaged students, Educational
programs, Discretionary grants, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.042 Student
Support Services Program.)
[[Page 64110]]
Dated: November 28, 1995.
David A. Longanecker,
Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
The Secretary proposes to amend Title 34 of the Code of Federal
Regulations by revising Part 646 to read as follows:
PART 646--STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES PROGRAM
Subpart A--General
Sec.
646.1 What is the Student Support Services Program?
646.2 Who is eligible to receive a grant?
646.3 Who is eligible to participate in a Student Support Services
project?
646.4 What activities and services may a project provide?
646.5 How long is a project period?
646.6 What regulations apply?
646.7 What definitions apply?
Subpart B--How Does One Apply for an Award?
646.10 How many applications for a Student Support Services award
may an eligible applicant submit?
646.11 What assurances must an applicant include in an application?
Subpart C--How Does the Secretary Make a Grant?
646.20 How does the Secretary decide which new grants to make?
646.21 What selection criteria does the Secretary use?
646.22 How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience?
646.23 How does the Secretary set the amount of a grant?
Subpart D--What Conditions Must Be Met by a Grantee?
646.30 What are allowable costs?
646.31 What are unallowable costs?
646.32 What other requirements must a grantee meet?
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-14, unless otherwise
noted.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 646.1 What is the Student Support Services Program?
The Student Support Services Program provides grants for projects
designed to--
(a) Provide support services to eligible students to enhance their
academic skills, increase their retention and graduation rates, and, as
appropriate, facilitate their entrance into four-year colleges or
graduate and professional programs; and
(b) Foster an institutional climate supportive of the success of
low-income and first generation college students and individuals with
disabilities through services such as those described in Sec. 646.4.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-14)
Sec. 646.2 Who is eligible to receive a grant?
An institution of higher education or a combination of institutions
of higher education are eligible to receive a grant to carry out a
Student Support Services project.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-14)
Sec. 646.3 Who is eligible to participate in a Student Support
Services project?
A student is eligible to participate in a Student Support Services
project if the student meets all of the following requirements:
(a) Is a citizen or national of the United States or meets the
residency requirements for Federal student financial assistance.
(b) Is enrolled at the grantee institution or accepted for
enrollment in the next academic term at that institution.
(c) Has a need for academic support, as determined by the grantee,
in order to pursue successfully a postsecondary educational program.
(d) Is--
(1) A low-income individual;
(2) A first generation college student; or
(3) An individual with disabilities.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-14)
Sec. 646.4 What activities and services may a project provide?
A Student Support Services project may provide the following
services:
(a) Instruction in reading, writing, study skills, mathematics, and
other subjects necessary for success beyond secondary school.
(b) Personal counseling.
(c) Academic advice and assistance in course selection.
(d) Tutorial services and counseling and peer counseling.
(e) Exposure to cultural events and academic programs not usually
available to disadvantaged students.
(f) Activities designed to acquaint students participating in the
project with the range of career options available.
(g) Activities designed to secure admission and financial
assistance for enrollment in graduate and professional programs.
(h) Activities designed to assist students currently enrolled in
two-year institutions in securing admission and financial assistance
for enrollment in a four-year program of postsecondary education.
(i) Mentoring programs involving faculty or upper class students,
or any combination of faculty members and upper class students.
(j) Programs and activities as described in paragraphs (a) through
(i) of this section that are specifically designed for students of
limited English proficiency.
(k) Other activities designed to meet the purposes of the Student
Support Services Program stated in Sec. 646.1.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-14)
Sec. 646.5 How long is a project period?
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a project
period under the Student Support Services program is four years.
(b) The Secretary approves a project period of five years for
applicants that score in the highest ten percent of all applicants
approved for new grants under the criteria in Sec. 646.21.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)
Sec. 646.6 What regulations apply?
The following regulations apply to the Student Support Services
Program:
(a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations
(EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 82, 85 and 86; and
(b) The regulations in this part 646.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-14)
Sec. 646.7 What definitions apply?
(a) Definitions in the Act. The following terms used in this part
are defined in sections 402(A)(g), 481, or 1201(a) of the Higher
Education Act (HEA) of 1965, as amended.
First generation college student.
Institution of higher education.
Low-income individual.
(b) Definitions in EDGAR. The following terms used in this part are
defined in 34 CFR 77.1:
Applicant
Application
Award
Budget
Budget Period
Department
EDGAR
Equipment
Facilities
Fiscal year
Grant
Grantee
Grant Period
Project
Project period
Public
Secretary
Supplies
(c) Other definitions. The following definitions also apply to this
part:
Academic need with reference to a student means a student whom the
grantee determines needs one or more of
[[Page 64111]]
the services stated under Sec. 646.4 to succeed in a postsecondary
educational program.
Cohort rate means a statistical measure used to compare the
characteristics or outcomes of a specified group of students over time
with other groups for which similar rates have been calculated.
Combination of institutions of higher education means two or more
institutions of higher education that have entered into a cooperative
agreement for the purpose of carrying out a common objective, or an
entity designated or created by a group of institutions of higher
education for the purpose of carrying out a common objective on their
behalf.
Different campus means an institutional site that is geographically
apart from and independent of the main campus of the institution. The
Secretary considers a location of an institution to be independent of
the main campus if the location--
(1) Is permanent in nature;
(2) Offers courses in educational programs leading to a degree,
certificate, or other recognized educational credential;
(3) Has its own faculty and administrative or supervisory
organization; and
(4) Has its own budgetary and hiring authority.
Different population of participants means a group of either--
(1) Low-income, first-generation college students; or
(2) Disabled students.
Individual with disabilities means a person who has a diagnosed
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits that person's
ability to participate in the educational experiences and opportunities
offered by the grantee institution.
Limited proficiency in English with reference to an individual
means an individual whose native language is other than English and who
has sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding
the English language to deny that individual the opportunity to learn
successfully in classrooms in which English is the language of
instruction.
Participant means an individual who--
(1) Is determined to be eligible to participate in the project
under Sec. 646.3; and
(2) Receives project services on a continual basis for a period of
more than one full grading period at the grantee institution.
Sufficient financial assistance means the amount of financial aid
offered a Student Support Services student, inclusive of Federal,
State, local, private, and institutional aid which, together with
parent or student contributions, is equal to the cost of attendance as
determined by a financial aid officer at the institution.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-14)
Subpart B--How Does One Apply for an Award?
Sec. 646.10 How many applications for a Student Support Services award
may an eligible applicant submit?
The Secretary accepts more than one application from an eligible
applicant so long as each additional application describes a project
that serves a different campus, or a different population of
participants who cannot readily be served by a single project.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-14)
Sec. 646.11 What assurances must an applicant include in an
application?
An applicant shall assure in its application that--
(a) At least two-thirds of the students it will serve in its
Student Support Services project will be--
(1) Low-income individuals who are first generation college
students; or
(2) Individuals with disabilities;
(b) The remaining students it will serve will be low-income
individuals, first generation college students, or individuals with
disabilities;
(c) Not less than one-third of the individuals with disabilities
will be low-income individuals; and
(d) Each student participating in the project will be offered
sufficient financial assistance to meet that student's full financial
need.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-14)
Subpart C--How Does the Secretary Make a Grant?
Sec. 646.20 How does the Secretary decide which new grants to make?
(a) The Secretary evaluates an application for a new grant as
follows:
(1) (i) The Secretary evaluates the application on the basis of the
selection criteria in Sec. 646.21.
(ii) The maximum score for all the criteria in Sec. 646.21 is 00
points. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in
parentheses with the criterion.
(2) (i) If an application for a new grant proposes to continue to
serve substantially the same population or campus that the applicant is
serving under an expiring grant, the Secretary evaluates the
applicant's prior experience in delivering services under the expiring
grant on the basis of the criteria in Sec. 646.22.
(ii) The maximum score for all the criteria in Sec. 646.22 is 15
points. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in
parentheses with the criterion.
(b) The Secretary makes new grants in rank order on the basis of
the applications' total scores under paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of
this section.
(c) If the total scores of two or more applications are the same
and there is insufficient money available to fully fund them both after
funding the higher-ranked applications, the Secretary chooses among the
tied applications so as to serve geographic areas that have been
underserved by the Student Support Services Program.
(d) The Secretary does not make grants to applicants that carried
out a Federal TRIO program project that involved the fraudulent use of
funds.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-14)
Sec. 646.21 What selection criteria does the Secretary use?
The Secretary uses the following criteria to evaluate an
application for a new grant:
(a) Need for the project (24 points). The Secretary evaluates the
need for a Student Support Services project proposed at the applicant
institution on the basis of the extent to which the application
contains clear evidence of--
(1) A high number or percentage, or both, of students enrolled or
accepted for enrollment at the applicant institution who meet the
eligibility requirements of Sec. 646.3;
(2) The academic and other problems that eligible students
encounter at the applicant institution; and
(3) Students eligible for Student Support Services projects who are
less likely to succeed as compared to the total enrollment at the
applicant institution based upon the following indicators:
(i) Retention and graduation rates.
(ii) Grade point averages.
(iii) Graduate and professional school enrollment rates (four-year
colleges only).
(iv) Transfer rates from two-year to four-year institutions (two-
year colleges only).
(b) Objectives (8 points). The Secretary evaluates the quality of
the applicant's proposed project objectives on the basis of the extent
to which they--
(1) Include both process and outcome objectives relating to each of
the
[[Page 64112]]
purposes of the Student Support Services Program stated in Sec. 646.1;
(2) Address the needs and aspirations of the proposed project
participants;
(3) Are clearly described, specific, and measurable; and
(4) Are ambitious but attainable within each budget period and the
project period given the project budget and other resources.
(c) Plan of operation (30 points). The Secretary evaluates the
quality of the applicant's plan of operation on the basis of the
following:
(1) (3 points) The plan to inform the institutional community
(students, faculty and staff) of the goals, objectives, and services of
the project and the eligibility requirements for participation in the
project.
(2) (3 points) The plan to identify, select and retain project
participants with academic need and ensure their participation without
regard to race, color, national origin, or gender.
(3) (4 points) The plan for assessing individual participants' need
for specific services and monitoring their academic progress.
(4) (10 points) The plan to provide services that address the goals
and objectives of the project.
(5) (10 points) The applicant's plan to ensure proper and efficient
administration of the project, including the organizational placement
of the project; the time commitment of key project staff; the specific
plans for financial management, student records management, and
personnel management; and, where appropriate, its plan for coordination
with other programs for disadvantaged students.
(d) Institutional commitment (16 points). The Secretary evaluates
the institutional commitment to the proposed project on the basis of
the extent to which the applicant has--
(1) (6 points) Committed facilities, equipment, supplies,
personnel, and other resources to supplement the grant and enhance
project services;
(2) (6 points) Established administrative and academic policies
that enhance participants' retention at the institution and improve
their chances of graduating from the institution;
(3) (2 points) Demonstrated a commitment to minimize the dependence
on student loans in developing financial aid packages for project
participants by committing institutional resources to the extent
possible; and
(4) (2 points) Assured the full cooperation and support of the
Admissions, Student Aid and Registrar functional components of the
institution.
(e) Quality of personnel (9 points). To determine the quality of
personnel the applicant plans to use, the Secretary looks for
information that shows--
(1) The qualifications required of the project director, including
formal education and training in fields related to the objectives of
the project, and experience in designing, managing, or implementing
Student Support Services or similar projects;
(2) The qualifications required of other personnel to be used in
the project, including formal education, training, and work experience
in fields related to the objectives of the project; and
(3) The quality of the applicant's plan for employing personnel who
have succeeded in overcoming barriers similar to those confronting the
project's target population.
(f) Budget (5 points). The Secretary evaluates the extent to which
the project budget is reasonable, cost-effective, and adequate to
support the project.
(g) Evaluation plan (8 points). The Secretary evaluates the quality
of the evaluation plan for the project on the basis of the extent to
which the applicant's methods of evaluation--
(1) Are appropriate to the project and include both quantitative
and qualitative evaluation measures;
(2) Examine in specific and measurable ways, using appropriate
baseline data, the success of the project in improving academic
achievement, retention and graduation of project participants; and
(3) Compares project outcomes with institutional data on student
cohorts not served by the project.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-14)
Sec. 646.22 How does the Secretary evaluate prior experience?
(a) In the case of an application described in
Sec. 646.20(a)(2)(i), the Secretary reviews information relating to an
applicant's performance under its expiring Student Support Services
project. This information may come from performance reports, site visit
reports, project evaluation reports, and any other verifiable
information submitted by the applicant.
(b) The Secretary evaluates the applicant's prior experience in
achieving the goals of the Student Support Services Program on the
basis of the following criteria:
(1) (4 points) The extent to which project participants persisted
toward completion of the academic programs in which they were enrolled.
(2) (4 points) The extent to which project participants met
academic performance levels required to stay in good academic standing
at the grantee institution.
(3) (4 points) The extent to which project participants graduated
from the grantee institution.
(4) (3 points) The extent to which project participants either
transferred from two-year to four-year institutions (two-year colleges
only) or enrolled in graduate or professional schools (four-year
colleges only).
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-14)
Sec. 646.23 How does the Secretary set the amount of a grant?
(a) The Secretary sets the amount of a grant on the basis of--
(1) 34 CFR 75.232 and 75.233, for new grants; and
(2) 34 CFR 75.253, for the second and subsequent years of a project
period.
(b) If the circumstances described in section 402A(b)(3) of the HEA
exist, the Secretary uses the available funds to set the amount of the
grant beginning in fiscal year 1995 at the lesser of--
(1) $170,000; or
(2) The amount requested by the applicant.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)
Subpart D--What Conditions Must Be Met By a Grantee?
Sec. 646.30 What are allowable costs?
The cost principles that apply to the Student Support Services
Program are in 34 CFR part 74, subpart Q. Allowable costs include the
following if they are reasonably related to the objectives of the
project:
(a) Cost of remedial and special classes if--
(1) These classes are not otherwise available at the grantee
institution;
(2) Are limited to eligible project participants; and
(3) Project participants are not charged tuition for instruction
paid for the classes.
(b) Courses in English language instruction for students of limited
proficiency in English if these classes are limited to eligible project
participants and not otherwise available at the grantee institution.
(c) In-service training of project staff.
(d) Activities of an academic or cultural nature, such as field
trips, special lectures, and symposiums, that have as their purpose the
improvement of the participants' academic progress and personal
development at the institution.
(e) Transportation of participants and staff to and from approved
educational
[[Page 64113]]
and cultural activities sponsored by the project.
(f) Purchase of computer hardware, computer software, or other
equipment to be used for student development, student records and
project administration if the applicant demonstrates to the Secretary's
satisfaction that the equipment is required to meet the objectives of
the project more economically or efficiently.
(g) Professional development travel for staff if directly related
to the project's overall purpose and activities, except that these
costs may not exceed four percent of total project salaries. The
Secretary may adjust this percentage if the applicant demonstrates to
the Secretary's satisfaction that a higher percentage is necessary and
reasonable.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-14)
Sec. 646.31 What are unallowable costs?
Costs that may not be charged against a grant under the Student
Support Services Program include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(a) Costs involved in recruiting students for enrollment at the
institution.
(b) Tuition, fees, stipends, and other forms of direct financial
support for staff or participants.
(c) Research not directly related to the evaluation or improvement
of the project.
(d) Construction, renovation, or remodeling of any facilities.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-14)
Sec. 646.32 What other requirements must a grantee meet?
(a) Eligibility of participants. (1) A grantee shall determine the
eligibility of each participant in the project when the individual is
selected to participate. The grantee does not have to revalidate a
participant's eligibility after the participant's initial selection.
(2) A grantee shall determine the low-income status of an
individual on the basis of the documentation described in section
402A(e) of the Higher Education Act.
(3) A grantee shall not serve any individual who is receiving
services from another Federal TRIO Program.
(b) Recordkeeping. A grantee shall maintain participant records
that show--
(1) The basis for the grantee's determination that each participant
is eligible to participate in the project under Sec. 646.3;
(2) The grantee's basis for determining the academic need for each
participant;
(3) The services that are provided to each participant; and
(4) The performance and progress of each participant for the
duration of the participant's attendance at the grantee institution.
(c) Project director. (1) A grantee shall employ a full-time
project director unless paragraph (c)(3) of this section applies.
(2) The grantee shall give the project director sufficient
authority to administer the project effectively.
(3) The Secretary waives the requirement in paragraph (c)(1) of
this section if the applicant demonstrates that the requirement will
hinder coordination--
(i) Among the Federal TRIO Programs; or
(ii) Between the programs funded under sections 404A through 410 of
the Higher Education Act and similar programs funded through other
sources.
(d) Project coordination. (1) The Secretary encourages grantees to
coordinate project services with other programs for disadvantaged
students operated by the grantee institution provided the Student
Support Services grant funds are not used to support activities
reasonably available to the general student population.
(2) To the extent practical, the grantee may share staff with
programs serving similar populations provided the grantee maintains
appropriate records of staff time and effort and does not comingle
grant funds.
(3) Costs for special classes and events that would benefit Student
Support Services students and participants in other programs for
disadvantaged students may be proportionately divided among the
projects that receive the benefits.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-14)
[FR Doc. 95-30343 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30334 Constraint Level for Air Emissions of Radionuclides
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63984-63987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30334]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 20
RIN 3150-AF31
Constraint Level for Air Emissions of Radionuclides
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to
establish a constraint of 10 mrem/yr total effective dose equivalent
(TEDE) for dose to members of the public from air emissions of
radionuclides from NRC licensed facilities other than power reactors.
This proposed rule is necessary to provide assurance to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that future emissions from NRC
licensees will not exceed levels that will provide an ample margin of
safety. This action is expected to be the final step in providing EPA
with a basis upon which to rescind its Clean Air Act (CAA) regulations
for NRC licensed facilities (other than power reactors) and Agreement
State licensees, thereby relieving these licensees from unnecessary
dual regulations.
DATES: Submit comments by March 12, 1996. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission
is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before
this date.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Docketing and Services Branch. Hand
deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between
7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.
Comments may be submitted electronically, in either ASCII text or
Wordperfect format (version 5.1 or later), by calling the NRC
Electronic Rulemaking Bulletin Board (BBS) on FEDWORLD.
The BBS is an electronic information system operated by the
National Technical Information Service of the Department of Commerce.
The purpose of this bulletin board BBS is to facilitate public
participation in the NRC regulatory process, particularly rulemakings.
With publication of this notice, proposed rulemakings and appropriate
supporting documents will be available for review and comment on the
BBS. These same documents are also available for review and comment at
the NRC's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level),
Washington, DC. The BBS may be accessed using a personal computer, a
modem, and one of the commonly available communications software
packages, or directly via Internet.
The NRC rulemaking bulletin board (rulemaking subsystem) on
FEDWORLD can be accessed directly by using a personal computer and
modem, dialing the toll free number at 1-800-303-9672. Communication
software parameters should be set as follows: parity to none, data bits
to 8, and stop bits to 1 (N,8,1). Using ANSI or VT-100 terminal
emulation, the NRC rulemaking subsystem can then be accessed by
selecting the ``Rules Menu'' option from the ``NRC Main Menu.'' For
further information about options available for NRC at FEDWORLD consult
the ``Help/Information Center'' from the ``NRC Main Menu.'' Users will
find the ``FEDWORLD Online User's Guides'' particularly helpful. Many
NRC subsystems and databases also have a ``Help/Information Center''
option that is tailored to the particular subsystem.
The NRC subsystem on FEDWORLD also can be accessed by a direct dial
phone number for the main FEDWORLD BBS at 703-321-3339; or by using
Telnet via Internet: fedworld.gov. Using the 703 number to contact
FEDWORLD, the NRC subsystem will be accessed from the main FEDWORLD
menu by selecting the ``Regulatory, Government Administration and State
Systems,'' then selecting ``Regulatory Information Mall.'' At that
point, a menu will be displayed that has the option ``U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission'' that will take you to the NRC Online main menu.
The NRC Online area also can be accessed directly by typing ``/go nrc''
at a FEDWORLD command line. If you access NRC from FEDWORLD's main
menu, then you may return to FEDWORLD by selecting the ``Return to
FEDWORLD'' option from the NRC Online Main Menu. However, if you access
NRC at FEDWORLD by using NRC's toll-free number, then you will have
full access to all NRC systems, but you will not have access to the
main FEDWORLD system.
If you contact FEDWORLD using Telnet, you will see the NRC area and
menus, including the ``Rules Menu''. Although you will be able to
download documents and leave messages, you will not be able to write
comments or upload files. If you contact FEDWORLD using FTP, all files
can be accessed and downloaded, but uploads are not allowed, and all
you will see is a list of files without descriptions (normal Gopher
look). An index file listing all files within a subdirectory, with
[[Page 63985]]
descriptions, is available. There is a 15-minute time limit for FTP
access.
Although FEDWORLD also can be accessed through the World Wide Web
as well, like FTP, that mode only provides access for downloading
files, and does not display the NRC ``Rules Menu.''
For more information on NRC bulletin boards call Mr. Arthur Davis,
Systems Integration and Development Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-5780; e-mail
AXD[email protected].
Comments received on this proposed rule may be examined and/or
copied for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW.
(Lower Level), Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charleen T. Raddatz, Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6215; e-mail [email protected]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA promulgated National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for radionuclides on
October 31, 1989. Subpart I of 40 CFR 61 was promulgated to implement
the CAA and limit doses to members of the public from air emissions of
radionuclides (other than Radon-222) from all NRC licensees other than
licensees possessing only sealed sources, high-level waste repositories
and uranium mill tailings piles that have been disposed of in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 192 and are subject to the requirements of
Subpart I. Initially, Radon-222 emissions from tailings were covered by
40 CFR 61, Subparts T and W. Subpart T was rescinded for NRC licensees
after Appendix A to Part 40 was amended by the Commission to conform to
changes EPA issued to 40 CFR 192 that adopted the provisions of subpart
T (Subpart W still applies to NRC licensees). Since Radon-222 is
adequately addressed in Appendix A to Part 40 and other provisions of
Part 20 it is not covered in this proposed rulemaking.
Under Subpart I, emissions of radionuclides must be limited so that
no member of the public would receive an effective dose equivalent of
greater than 10 mrem/yr 1.
\1\ Subpart I expresses dose in effective dose equivalent (EDE).
NRC expresses dose in total effective dose equivalent (TEDE). These
terms are essentially equivalent. For the sake of consistency, this
paper will refer to all doses in terms of TEDE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1990, Congress enacted amendments to the CAA. Section 112(d)(9)
of these amendments to the CAA (the Simpson amendment) states:
No standard for radionuclide emissions from any category or
subcategory of facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (or an Agreement State) is required to be promulgated
under this section if the Administrator determines, by rule, and
after consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that the
regulatory program established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act for such category or subcategory
provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health.
Upon issuance, the effectiveness of Subpart I for all NRC licensees
was immediately stayed by EPA pending further evaluation. During the
stay period, EPA conducted two studies of the air emissions from NRC
and Agreement State materials licensees. The first was a survey of 367
randomly selected nuclear materials licensees. EPA determined that the
highest estimated dose to a member of the public from air emissions
from these facilities was 8 mrem/yr, based on very conservative
modeling. In addition, 98 percent of the facilities surveyed reported
doses to members of the public resulting from air emissions less than 1
mrem/yr. The second study evaluated dose from air emissions from 43
additional facilities that were selected because of their potential for
air emissions resulting in significant public exposures. EPA found that
75 percent of these licensees had air emissions resulting in an
estimated maximum public dose less than 1 mrem/yr. For the licensees
evaluated, none exceeded 10 mrem/yr.
In its initial proposal to rescind Subpart I for NRC licensees
other than power reactors, EPA stated that:
Based on the result of the survey undertaken by EPA and the
commitments made by NRC in the MOU, EPA has made an initial
determination that the NRC program under the Atomic Energy Act
provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health (57
FR 56880; December 1, 1992).
However, EPA continued to express concern regarding the adequacy of
the measures to ``assure EPA that future emissions from NRC licensees
will not exceed levels that will provide an ample margin of safety.''
The stay on Subpart I expired on November 15, 1992, and Subpart I
became effective on November 16, 1992. Subsequently, in July of 1993,
the EPA Administrator determined that there was insufficient basis at
that time to rescind Subpart I. Consequently, NRC and Agreement State
licensed facilities are currently subject to dual regulation of air
emissions of radionuclides under both the AEA and the CAA, including
regulatory oversight by EPA (or authorized State) and NRC (or Agreement
State).
NRC licensees subject to Subpart I are also subject to NRC dose
limits for members of the public contained in 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart D
entitled ``Radiation Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public''
(Subpart D). Under Subpart D, licensees shall ensure that doses to
members of the public are less than 100 mrem/yr from all pathways
(including air emissions) and all sources associated with the
licensee's operation. In addition, doses to members of the public must
be kept as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). Based on the
aforementioned studies conducted by EPA and licensee reporting of doses
to members of the public from air emissions to EPA, it is evident that
less than 10 mrem/yr to the maximally exposed member of the public from
air emissions is reasonably achievable.
NRC power reactor licensees subject to 10 CFR 50.34a must keep
doses to members of the public from air emissions consistent with the
numerical guidelines in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. In addition,
these licensees have for many years reported estimated doses to members
of the public from air emissions well below the Subpart I value. Based
on the combination of a continuing regulatory basis for reduced air
emissions and documented proof of the effectiveness of the NRC program
for these licensees, EPA has already proposed to rescind Subpart I for
power reactors licensed by NRC (56 FR 37196; August 5, 1991).
The NRC is proposing to establish a constraint of 10 mrem/yr TEDE
for dose to members of the public from air emissions of radionuclides
from NRC licensed facilities other than power reactors as a part of its
program to maintain doses ALARA. The rulemaking being proposed would
codify numerical values for NRC's application of ALARA guidelines on
radioactive air emissions from its licensees, other than power
reactors. For power reactors, ALARA guidelines have already been
established within 10 CFR 50 and facility licensing conditions. This
regulatory action would ensure that air emissions are maintained at a
very low level and, taking into consideration the elimination of dual
regulation, at little or no cost. This action would also bring
consistency between EPA's dose standard and the NRC's ALARA
application, thereby providing EPA with a basis upon which to rescind
Subpart I as it applies to NRC licensed facilities other than power
reactors. This action is expected to be the final step in providing EPA
with a basis upon which to rescind Subpart I for NRC licensees other
than power reactors.
[[Page 63986]]
NRC has been working cooperatively with EPA over the last several
years to support rescission of EPA's standards in Subpart I of 40 CFR
Part 61 in accordance with Section 112(d)(9) of the CAA. The
fundamental objective of this effort has been to eliminate unnecessary
duplicative regulations that provide no incremental benefit in terms of
public and environmental protection.
The regulatory framework within which NRC proposes to provide a
basis for rescission of Subpart I consists of the requirements in 10
CFR Part 20 to limit doses to members of the public to 100 mrem/yr, to
maintain these doses as far below this limit as is reasonably
achievable (ALARA), and to constrain dose to members of the public from
air emissions of radioactive materials from a single source to 10 mrem/
yr.
If the licensee estimates or measures a dose to a member of the
public expected to receive the highest dose from air effluents to be
less than 10 mrem/yr, the licensee would be required to record the dose
and the assumption used to calculate it consistent with the
requirements of Sec. 20.2103. This data would be made available to
inspectors upon request. If the licensee estimates or measures a dose
to the member of the public expected to receive the highest dose from
air effluents to be greater than 10 mrem/yr, the licensee would be
required to report the dose to NRC in writing within 30 days. In
addition, the licensee would be required to include in that report the
circumstances that led to the greater than 10 mrem/year dose, a
description of the corrective steps the licensee has taken or proposes
to take to ensure that the constraint is not again exceeded, a
timetable for implementing the corrective steps, and the expected
results.
The constraint on dose from air emissions is different than a
limit. Exceeding this constraint would not result in a Notice of
Violation (NOV). Rather, a NOV would be issued only upon failure to
report that actual or estimated doses, from air effluent releases from
a facility, have exceeded the constraint value and/or failure to
institute appropriate measures to correct and prevent further emissions
in excess of those which would result in dose exceeding the constraint
level.
The proposed rule would apply to airborne releases, other than
Radon-222, from all NRC licensees except power reactors. Power reactors
are exempt from this proposed rule because they are already required
under 10 CFR 50.34a to identify, in their application, design
objectives and the means to be employed for keeping doses to members of
the public from air effluents ALARA. Appendix I to Part 50 contains the
numerical guidelines to meet this requirement.
In addition to the discussion above, the Commission is soliciting
comments on the question of whether the 10 mrem constraint should be
established in 10 CFR Part 20, as proposed, or whether it should be
established separately in each appropriate Part of Title 10 instead.
Regulatory Guide
Regulatory Guide 8.37, ALARA Levels for Effluents From Materials
Facilities, is being modified to reflect the introduction of the
constraint on air emissions in the proposed rule and to identify those
methods acceptable to the NRC for implementing the rule. To afford
members of the public with an opportunity to comment on the rule and
guide as a complete package, publication of the guide for comment is
expected to be coincident with publication of the proposed rule, or
within a few weeks of the date of publication of the proposed rule.
Agreement State Compatibility
Section 116 of the CAA authorizes individual States to establish
more restrictive requirements than those presented in Subpart I. In
view of the CAA precedent, the NRC staff is recommending that this rule
be a Division 2 matter of compatibility under the existing
compatibility policy. As such, Agreement States could choose to adopt a
rule which is more restrictive but no less restrictive than the one
approved by the Commission.
The NRC is in the process of revising its compatibility policy and
has issued a proposed policy for public comment (59 FR 37269; July 21,
1994). Although the compatibility policy has not yet been finalized,
the NRC anticipates that a similar level of Agreement State
compatibility will be required for air emissions under the new policy
as is required under a Division Level 2 designation.
Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact
The Commission has determined under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in Subpart A
of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment and therefore an environmental impact statement is not
required. This action is not expected to have any significant
environmental impact because the programs would provide equivalent
protection. Actual air emissions are not expected to change. The
changes would be procedural methods for demonstrating compliance and
inspection procedures. The environmental assessment and finding of no
significant impact on which this determination is based are available
for inspection and photocopying for a fee at the NRC Public Document
Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that
are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq). This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval of the information collection
requirements.
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 80 hours per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is
seeking public comment on the potential impact of the collection of
information contained in the proposed rule and on the following issues:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the
information will have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of burden accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the collection of information be
minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques?
Send comments on any aspect of this proposed collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the
Information and Records Management Branch (T-6 F33), U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-001, and to the Desk
Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202
(3150-0014), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Comments to OMB on the collections of information or on the above
issues should be submitted by January 12, 1996. Comments received after
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance
of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date.
[[Page 63987]]
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
Regulatory Analysis
The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this
proposed regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of
the alternatives considered by the Commission. The draft analysis is
available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street
NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the analysis may be
obtained from Charleen T. Raddatz, (301) 415-6215.
The Commission requests public comment on the draft analysis.
Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated
under the Addresses heading.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C.
605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule only impacts NRC licensees with emissions of
significant quantities of radioactive material. This category of
licensee includes only a few small businesses.
Backfit Analysis
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does
not apply to this proposed rule because it does not apply to power
reactor licensees, and therefore, that a backfit analysis is not
required for this proposed rule because these amendments do not involve
any provisions which would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR
50.109(a)(1).
List of Subjects In 10 CFR Part 20
Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Licensed material, Nuclear
materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Occupational safety and
health, Packaging and containers, Radiation protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Source material, Special nuclear material,
Waste treatment and disposal.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to
adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 20.
PART 20--STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION
1. The authority citation for Part 20 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 53, 63, 65, 81, 103, 104, 161, 182, 186, 68
stat. 930, 933, 935, 936, 937, 948, 953, 955, as amended, sec. 1701,
106 Stat. 2951, 2952, 2953 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2133,
2134, 2201, 2232, 2236, 2297f); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88
stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
2. In Sec. 20.1003, the definition of Constraint is added to read
as follows:
Sec. 20.1003 Definitions.
* * * * *
Constraint (dose constraint) means a value above which specified
licensee actions are required.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 20.1101 paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 20.1101 Radiation protection programs
* * * * *
(d) To implement the ALARA requirements of Sec. 20.1101(b), and
notwithstanding the requirements in Sec. 20.1301 of this part,
licensees other than those subject to Secs. 50.34a or 50.36b, shall
constrain air emissions of radioactive materials other than radon-222
so that the individual member of the public likely to receive the
highest dose will not be expected to receive a dose in excess of 10
mrem/yr TEDE from these emissions. If a licensee subject to this
requirement exceeds this dose constraint, the licensee shall report the
exceedence as provided in Sec. 20.2203 and promptly take appropriate
corrective action to ensure against recurrence.
4. In Sec. 20.2203 a new paragraph (a)(2)(vi) is added and the
section heading and paragraph (b)(1)(iv) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 20.2203 Reports of exposures, radiation levels, and
concentrations of radioactive material exceeding the constraints or
limits.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) The ALARA constraints for air emissions established under
Sec. 20.1101(c); or
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Corrective steps taken or planned to ensure against a
recurrence, including the schedule for achieving conformance with
applicable limits, ALARA constraints, generally applicable
environmental standards, and associated license conditions.
* * * * *
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of December, 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 95-30334 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30328 Small Business Size Standards; Waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63987-63988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30328]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
13 CFR Part 121
Small Business Size Standards; Waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule
AGENCY: Small Business Administration.
ACTION: Notice of intent to waive the nonmanufacturer rule for
minicomputers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Small Business Administration (SBA) is considering
granting a waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Minicomputers. A
Minicomputer is ``a digital computer whose price and capability lies
above that of a personal computer or workstation, and below that of a
mainframe computer'' as defined by the Ralston and Reilly Encyclopedia
of Computer Science Third Edition. The SBA adds that most Minicomputers
are run in a closed-shop environment, with the user acting as operator,
programmer, and application analyst. The basis for a waiver of the
Nonmanufacturer Rule for this product is that there are no small
business manufacturers or processors available to supply these products
to the Federal Government. The effect of a waiver would be to allow
otherwise qualified regular dealers to supply other than the product of
a domestic small business manufacturer or processor on a Federal
contract set aside for small businesses or awarded through the SBA 8(a)
Program. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments and
potential source information from interested parties.
DATES: Comments and sources must be submitted on or before December 29,
1995.
ADDRESSES: David Wm. Loines, Procurement Analyst, U.S. Small Business
Administration, 409 3rd Street S.W., Washington, DC 20416.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Wm. Loines, 202-205-6475.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public law 100-656, enacted on November 15,
1988, incorporated into the Small Business Act the previously existing
regulation that recipients of Federal contracts set-aside for small
businesses or the SBA 8(a) Program procurement must provide the product
of a small business manufacturer or processor, if the recipient is
other than the actual
[[Page 63988]]
manufacturer or processor. This requirement is commonly referred to as
the Nonmanufacturer Rule. The SBA regulations imposing this requirement
are found at 13 CFR 121.906(b) and 121.1106(b). Section 303(h) of the
law provides for waiver of this requirement by SBA for any ``class of
products'' for which there are no small business manufacturers or
processors in the Federal market. To be considered available to
participate in the Federal market on these classes of products, a small
business manufacturer must have submitted a proposal for a contract
solicitation or received a contract from the Federal Government within
the last 24 months. The SBA defines ``class of products'' based on two
coding systems. The first is the Office of Management and Budget
Standard Industrial Classification Manual. The second is the Product
and Service Code established by the Federal Procurement Data System.
The Small Business Administration is currently processing a request
for a waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Minicomputers (SIC 3571,
PSC 7010) and invites the public to comment or provide information on
potential small business sources for this product.
In an effort to identify potential small business sources, the SBA
has searched the Procurement Automated Source System (PASS) and Thomas
Register, and the SBA will publish a notice in the Commerce Business
Daily. The public is invited to comment or provide source information
to SBA on the proposed waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for this
class of products.
Dated: November 6, 1995.
Judith A. Roussel,
Associate Administrator for Government Contracting.
[FR Doc. 95-30328 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30260 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for: Chromium Emissions From Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks; Ethylene Oxide Commercial Sterilization and Fumigation Operations; Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Facilities; and Secondary Lead Smelting
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64002-64006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30260]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-FRL-5344-4]
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for:
Chromium Emissions From Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and
Chromium Anodizing Tanks; Ethylene Oxide Commercial Sterilization and
Fumigation Operations; Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Facilities; and
Secondary Lead Smelting
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule: amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes amendments to certain sections of the
following promulgated standards: ``National Emission Standards for
Chromium Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and
Chromium Anodizing Tanks; Final Rule'' (subpart N); ``National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Ethylene Oxide Commercial
Sterilization and Fumigation Operations'' (subpart O); ``National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories:
Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Facilities'' (subpart M); and ``National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Secondary Lead
Smelting'' (subpart X). Except in the case of subpart X, today's action
proposes to amend the Final Rules' requirement that nonmajor sources
obtain title V operating permits. The action being taken today will
substantially reduce the unnecessary and undue regulatory burden for
States and local agencies, EPA Regional Offices, and the industry
during a time when tremendous resources are necessary for the initial
implementation of the title V permit program. Because sources are still
required to meet all applicable emission control requirements
established by the respective MACT standards, this action is not
expected to have adverse environmental results. The amendment to
subpart X will confirm that existing nonmajor secondary lead smelting
facilities will be subject to title V permit requirements.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before January 12,
1996, unless a hearing is requested by December 26, 1995. If a hearing
is requested, written comments must be received by January 29, 1996.
Public Hearing. Anyone requesting a public hearing must contact the
EPA no later than December 26, 1995. If a hearing is held, it will take
place on December 28, 1995, beginning at 10:00 a.m.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102),
Attention Docket No. A-88-02 (subpart N), or Attention Docket No. A-88-
03 (subpart O), or Attention Docket No. A-95-16 (subpart M), or
Attention Docket No. A-92-43 (subpart X), as applicable, (see docket
section below), room M-1500, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. The EPA requests that a separate
copy also be sent to the contact person listed below.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the
EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. Persons interested in attending the hearing or wishing
to present oral testimony should notify Marguerite Thweatt, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711,
telephone (919) 541-5607.
Docket. Docket No. A-88-02, containing the supporting information
for the original subpart N NESHAP and this action, Docket No. A-88-03,
containing the supporting information for the original subpart O
NESHAP, Docket No. A-88-11, containing the supporting information for
the original subpart M NESHAP, and Docket No. A-92-43, containing the
supporting information for the original subpart X NESHAP, are available
for public inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Waterside Mall, room M-1500, first floor, 401 M
Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-7548. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Lalit Banker, Emission Standards
Division (MD-13), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5420.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Title V of the Clean Air Act (Act), as amended in 1990, requires
States to develop programs for issuing operating permits to major
stationary sources (including major sources of hazardous air pollutants
listed in section 112 of the Act), sources covered by New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS), sources covered by emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants pursuant to section 112 of the Act, and
affected sources under the acid rain program. Section 502(a) of the Act
requires that major and nonmajor sources subject to 111 and 112
standards obtain operating permits. However, the Administrator may
exempt certain categories of nonmajor sources from the requirement to
obtain a permit ``if the Administrator finds that compliance with such
requirements is impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome
on such categories.* * *''
On July 21, 1992, EPA published in the Federal Register
implementing regulations for the title V permit program (40 CFR part
70). In Sec. 70.3(b)(1), EPA opted to allow States to temporarily
exempt nonmajor sources (except for affected sources and solid waste
incineration units), including those which were subject to section 111
or 112 standards promulgated as of July 21, 1992, from the requirement
to obtain a permit.
This temporary exemption was allowed for several reasons. Under
part 70, permitting authorities will process applications and issue
permits for tens of thousands of major sources during the early years
of the program. The EPA considered it ``unnecessarily burdensome'' to
also require permitting authorities to issue permits to a larger
population of nonmajor sources within the same time frame. Such a
requirement would stress the permitting
[[Page 64003]]
system at its most vulnerable time, and hinder timely issuance of
permits to both major and nonmajor emitters.
Additionally, the great majority of nonmajor sources are small
businesses, and many are not currently subject to State air permit
programs. Many small businesses will require greater assistance from
the permitting authorities because of a relative lack of technical and
legal expertise, resources, and experience in dealing with
environmental regulation. If permitting authorities are overburdened
from a backlog of permits to be processed, nonmajor sources will be
unable to obtain technical and procedural assistance necessary to help
them file timely and complete applications. This likely scenario
constitutes an unnecessary burden on nonmajor sources, especially
considering that by definition they emit less than major sources and
that deferring permitting requirements does not defer a source's
obligation to comply with the applicable requirements of the Act. [The
preamble to the final part 70 regulations (57 FR 32261) provides a more
exhaustive discussion of EPA's decision to allow States to temporarily
exempt nonmajor sources from title V permitting.]
The part 70 regulations specify that this temporary exemption will
expire at such time as EPA completes a rulemaking to determine how the
part 70 program should be structured for nonmajor sources. In addition,
the rulemaking will consider whether to grant permanent exemptions to
any source categories for which there is a sufficient record to support
such an exemption.
The part 70 regulations also address applicability for nonmajor
sources subject to section 111 or 112 standards promulgated after July
21, 1992. Section 70.3(b)(2) specifies that for nonmajor sources that
are subject to a standard or other requirement promulgated under either
section 111 or 112 of the Act after July 21, 1992, the Administrator
will determine whether to exempt any or all such sources from the
requirement to obtain a part 70 permit at the time that the new
standard is promulgated. Thus, decisions regarding permitting
exemptions were to be made as each new standard covering nonmajor
sources was published. With regard to section 112, EPA has published
since July 21, 1992 (in 40 CFR part 63) hazardous air pollutant
standards that apply to nonmajor sources in the following five source
categories: perchloroethylene dry cleaning facilities (September 22,
1993; 58 FR 49353), halogenated solvent cleaning (December 2, 1994; 59
FR 61801--amended June 5, 1995; 60 FR 29484), ethylene oxide commercial
sterilization and fumigation operations (December 6, 1994; 59 FR
62585), hard and decorative chromium electroplating and chromium
anodizing tanks (January 25, 1995; 60 FR 4948), and secondary lead
smelters (May 31, 1995; 60 FR 32587). Of these five, only the standard
for halogenated solvent cleaning contained a temporary permitting
exemption. In this standard, States were given the option of
permanently exempting small cold cleaners and temporarily exempting all
other nonmajor solvent cleaners from title V permit requirements.
The remaining standards did not offer any exemptions from
permitting, although the preamble to the dry cleaning standard did
state an intention to allow States to defer permitting of nonmajor
sources subject to that standard. Nonetheless, in the absence of
specific language in that regulation granting States the option to
exempt or temporarily exempt nonmajor sources from permit requirements,
the General Provisions (subpart A) of part 63 apply, which by default
extend the permitting requirement to nonmajor sources subject to post-
July 21, 1992, MACT standards.
II. Proposed Changes to Subpart N, Subpart O, and Subpart M
A. State Option to Defer Nonmajor Sources
The final rules, that is subparts N, O, and M, required all
affected nonmajor sources to obtain a title V permit from the
appropriate permitting authority. All affected nonmajor sources in the
above source categories are required to apply for a title V permit
within 12 months of the later of the following dates: the effective
date of the respective MACT standard or the effective date of a title V
program to which an affected source in the above source categories is
subject. Major sources in the above source categories are required to
apply for and obtain permits according to the transition plans outlined
in the title V programs submitted by the State and local permitting
authorities for EPA approval.
Several comments were received regarding the title V permit
requirements for area sources in the Chromium Electroplating rule
(subpart N) before promulgation. The commenters believed that the costs
for nonmajor sources to obtain title V permits would be overly
burdensome, and the emissions from such sources may be insignificant.
However, in responding to these comments in the final rule, EPA
believed that requiring area sources to obtain title V permits was
important because of the toxicity of chromium compounds and the close
proximity of many of these sources to residential areas. Following
promulgation of these final rules, discussions were held with States
and EPA Regions regarding their permitting strategies for nonmajor
sources. As a result, EPA concluded that the Chromium Final Rule
imposes an undue burden on the States in requiring the permitting of
nonmajor Chromium sources without deferral. In particular, EPA found
that permitting such sources during the early stages of the title V
program would be particularly burdensome to permitting authorities. In
addition to ensuring compliance with the requirements of the standard,
permitting authorities would also need to contact and educate owners or
operators of nonmajor sources regarding title V requirements. Following
the submittal of applications, permitting authorities would then begin
processing such applications in conjunction with major source
applications. Given that the vast number of Chromium sources (about
5,000 nationwide) are nonmajor sources, requiring a permitting
authority to permit nonmajor sources during the early years of
implementing a title V program imposes an undue burden.
The EPA believes that the Final Rule as promulgated will also
impose an undue hardship on a majority of owners or operators of
nonmajor sources because this burden on permitting authorities
translates into a burden on sources subject to the program. To require
that owners or operators of nonmajor sources meet the requirement of
filing a timely and complete application prior to or within the initial
implementation period of the Chromium Electroplating MACT Standard
would place an undue burden on these sources. As a result, the EPA has
concluded that the burden associated with permitting outweighs the
enhancement to the enforceability of this standard that would result
from inclusion in a title V permit. Therefore, the Final Rule is being
amended to allow States to defer for five (5) years all nonmajor
Chromium sources from being subject to the requirements of a title V
permit program.
The 5-year deferral is determined with respect to the effective
date of the first State or local program to defer nonmajor sources from
title V permitting. Washington State and local programs within the
State of Washington were the first programs approved by EPA which
deferred nonmajor sources. Final action on these programs was published
on November 9, 1994, and the programs became
[[Page 64004]]
effective on December 9, 1994. As a result, the 5-year deferral ends on
December 9, 1999, with Chromium sources becoming subject to title V on
that date. Applications from nonmajor Chromium sources are to be filed
within 12 months of becoming subject to title V (by December 9, 2000).
This also applies to nonmajor sources in subparts O and M for similar
reasons. The EPA emphasizes that this deferral applies to nonmajor
sources.
The sole standard which will not offer temporary exemptions from
part 70 permitting requirements is the secondary lead smelter standard
(subpart X, promulgated on May 31, 1995 (60 FR 32587)). In contrast to
the hundreds or thousands of sources in the four other source
categories, there are a total of only 16 secondary lead smelters and
only five of these are nonmajor sources. Additionally, the five
nonmajor lead smelters are owned by relatively large companies. These
companies should be better equipped to handle the part 70 permitting
process than the small businesses characterizing the other source
categories. For these reasons, EPA concludes that requiring the five
sources to obtain part 70 permits without delay will not be
impracticable or infeasible for the State or local permitting
authorities involved and will not unnecessarily burden the five
companies.
B. Proposed Permanent Exemption of Certain Decorative Chromium
Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Operations
Section 502(a) of the Act expressly gives the Administrator the
discretion to exempt one or more nonmajor source categories (in whole
or in part) from the requirement to obtain a permit ``if the
Administrator finds that compliance with such requirements is
impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on such
categories.'' 42 U.S.C. section 7661a (a). One factor that EPA
considers as part of the unnecessarily burdensome criteria is the
degree to which the standard is implementable outside of a title V
permit, such that the title V permit will provide minimal additional
benefit with regard to source-specific tailoring of the standard. To
the extent such benefit is minimal, it supports the finding that the
burden imposed is ``unnecessary.'' This factor was analyzed when EPA
evaluated decorative chrome plating (using hexavalent chromium baths)
and chromium anodizing processes that use fume suppressant technology
to reduce chromium emissions during operation. The fume suppressant
technology inhibits emissions at the source by reducing the surface
tension of the plating solution. The standard requires that the surface
tension be kept below 45 dynes per centimeter (dynes/cm) in order to
comply. In addition, the surface tension must be measured at a certain
specified time interval to ensure continuous compliance. This measure
of compliance (45 dynes/cm) is directly stated in the standard and is
directly enforceable. No judgment or negotiation is required in
establishing a directly enforceable monitoring value during a
performance test as is the case with the other chromium sources covered
by the rule which use add-on controls. Also included in this permitting
exemption are the decorative chrome plating operations using the
trivalent chrome baths which incorporate the use of wetting agents
which inhibit chromium emissions as a bath component. The standard does
not have any additional requirements for these sources except for
recordkeeping of chemicals bought.
Although sources using fume suppressant technology could be
permitted through general permits, thereby reducing the administrative
permitting burden for these sources, EPA believes this would add
minimally to enforceability of the rule. This is because the reporting,
recordkeeping, and annual compliance certification requirements of the
rule already approximate those which would be imposed through title V,
and which constitute a primary value added by a general title V permit.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the EPA is proposing to
permanently exempt all hexavalent decorative plating and chromium
anodizing operations that use fume suppressants as an emission
reduction technology and all trivalent decorative plating operations
incorporating wetting agents as a bath component from the requirement
of obtaining a title V permit. This is based upon EPA's determination
that it will be unnecessarily burdensome for these sources to obtain
permits.
All the requirements listed in the final standards (subparts N, O,
and M) will continue to be applicable per the schedule that is provided
in the respective rules. For example, all sources still must comply
with the compliance schedule within the rule, perform monitoring of the
required parameters for ensuring compliance, and follow the reporting
and recordkeeping requirements. The Administrator or a delegated State
or local authority will enforce the requirements of the final rules
through appropriate means, and will not be handicapped by the temporary
or permanent exemptions from the title V permit requirements. The EPA
believes that through the implementation of the final rules, the
primary goal of significant reductions in chromium, ethylene oxide, and
perchloroethylene emissions will be achieved.
III. Possible Additional Permanent Exemptions
Although this action proposes temporary exemptions for the subject
source categories (except for proposed permanent exemptions for two
subcategories within the chrome plating category), EPA will consider
promulgating additional permanent exemptions for any of these source
categories or subcategories within these source categories if
warranted. The EPA specifically solicits comment on whether any of the
source categories for which temporary exemptions are being proposed
should be permanently exempted from title V requirements and the
reasons for such permanent exemptions. Comments should address the
Clean Air Act criteria for exempting categories from permitting
requirements, which are that it would be ``impracticable, infeasible,
or unnecessarily burdensome on such source categories.'' Any comments
received and additional information obtained by EPA after this proposal
will be considered in determining whether sufficient justification
exists to promulgate permanent exemptions.
IV. Typographical Correction
A minor typographical error was discovered in section 63.344 of the
subpart N. It is being amended here to correctly present our intention.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held, if requested, to provide opportunity
for interested persons to make oral presentations regarding the
proposed amendments in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Act.
Persons wishing to make oral presentation on the proposed amendments
should contact the EPA at the address given in the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble. Oral presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each.
Any member of the public may file a written statement before, during,
or within 30 days after the hearing. Written statements should be
addressed to the Air Docket Section at the address given in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble and should refer to the applicable
docket number.
A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written statements will be
available
[[Page 64005]]
for inspection and copying during normal business hours at the EPA's
Air Docket Section in Washington, D.C. (see ADDRESSES section of the
preamble).
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements of the previously
promulgated National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) were submitted to and approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Today's proposed changes to the NESHAP would not increase
the information collection burden estimates made previously. In fact,
they are expected to reduce the required paperwork by providing the
opportunity for delays for some sources and exemptions for others from
requirements to obtain a title V permit.
C. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, the Agency must determine whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB
review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order, the OMB has notified
the EPA that it does not consider this to be a ``significant regulatory
action'' within the meaning of the Executive Order. Therefore, the EPA
did not submit this action to the OMB for review.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires EPA
to consider potential impacts of proposed regulations on small business
``entities.'' A regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) is required if
preliminary analysis indicates ``a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.'' As explained earlier in this
notice, the proposed amendments would reduce the impacts on small
businesses by allowing States to delay some and exempt others from the
requirement to obtain a title V permit.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``unfunded
Mandates Act'') (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the
Agency prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed
or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year.
Section 203 requires the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input
from and informing, educating, and advising any small governments that
may be significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.
As explained earlier in this notice, the proposed amendments would
reduce the cost to State, local, and tribal governments and the private
sector by allowing States to delay some and exempt others from the
requirement to obtain a title V permit. Therefore, EPA has not prepared
a budgetary impact statement for the proposed amendments.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 1, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be amended as set
forth below:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart N--[Amended]
2. Section 63.340 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.340 Applicability and designation of sources.
* * * * *
(e)(1) The Administrator has determined, pursuant to the criteria
under section 502(a) of the Act, that an owner or operator of the
following types of operations that are not by themselves major sources
and that are not located at major sources, as defined under 40 CFR
70.2, is permanently exempt from title V permitting requirements for
that operation:
(i) Any decorative chromium electroplating operation or chromium
anodizing operation that uses fume suppressants as an emission
reduction technology; and
(ii) Any decorative chromium electroplating operation that uses a
trivalent chromium bath that incorporates a wetting agent as a bath
ingredient.
(2) An owner or operator of any other affected source subject to
the provisions of this subpart is subject to title V permitting
requirements. These affected sources, if not major or located at major
sources as defined under 40 CFR 70.2, may be deferred by the applicable
title V permitting authority from title V permitting requirements for 5
years after the date on which the EPA first approves a part 70 program
(i.e., until December 9, 1999). All sources receiving deferrals shall
submit title V permit applications within 12 months of such date (by
December 9, 2000). All sources receiving deferrals still must meet the
compliance schedule as stated in section 63.343.
3. Section 63.342 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (c)(2)(i)(B) and introductory text of paragraph (f)(3)(i) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.342 Standards.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) By accepting a Federally-enforceable limit on the maximum
cumulative potential rectifier capacity of a hard chromium
electroplating facility and by maintaining monthly records in
accordance with Sec. 63.346(b)(12) to demonstrate that the limit has
not been exceeded. * * *
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to the work
practices of paragraph (f) of this section shall prepare an operation
and maintenance plan to be implemented no later than the compliance
date. The plan shall be incorporated by reference into the source's
title V permit, if and when a title V permit is required. The plan
shall include the following elements:
* * * * *
Sec. 63.344 [Amended]
4. In Sec. 63.344, paragraphs (e)(3)(v) and (e)(4)(iv) are amended
by revising the word ``less'' to read ``more.''
[[Page 64006]]
5. Section 63.347 is amended by revising the introductory text in
paragraph (e)(2) and paragraph (f)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.347 Reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) If the State in which the source is located has not been
delegated the authority to implement the rule, each time a notification
of compliance status is required under this part, the owner or operator
of an affected source shall submit to the Administrator a notification
of compliance status, signed by the responsible official (as defined in
Sec. 63.2) who shall certify its accuracy, attesting to whether the
affected source has complied with this subpart. If the State has been
delegated the authority, the notification of compliance status shall be
submitted to the appropriate authority. The notification shall list for
each affected source:
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) If the State in which the source is located has not been
delegated the authority to implement the rule, the owner or operator of
an affected source shall report to the Administrator the results of any
performance test conducted as required by Sec. 63.7 or Sec. 63.343(b).
If the State has been delegated the authority, the owner or operator of
an affected source should report performance test results to the
appropriate authority.
* * * * *
6. Table 1 to subpart N of Part 63 is amended by revising the entry
for ``63.5(a)'' to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart N of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General provisions reference Applies to subpart N Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
63.5(a)................................. Yes........................ Except replace the term ``source'' and
``stationary source'' in Sec. 63.5(a)
(1) and (2) of subpart A with ``affected
sources.''
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart O--[Amended]
7. Section 63.360 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.360 Applicability.
* * * * *
(f) The owner or operator of a source, subject to the provisions of
the title 40, chapter I, part 63 subpart O, using 1 ton (see
definition) is subject to title V permitting requirements. These
affected sources, if not major or located at major sources as defined
under 40 CFR 70.2, may be deferred by the applicable title V permitting
authority from title V permitting requirements for 5 years after the
date on which the EPA first approves a part 70 program (i.e., until
December 9, 1999). All sources receiving deferrals shall submit title V
permit applications within 12 months of such date (by December 9,
2000). All sources receiving deferrals still must meet compliance
schedule as stated in this Sec. 63.360.
* * * * *
Subpart M--[Amended]
8. Section 63.320 is amended by adding paragraph (k) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.320 Applicability.
* * * * *
(k) The owner or operator of any source subject to the provisions
of this subpart M is subject to title V permitting requirements. These
affected sources, if not major or located at major sources as defined
under 40 CFR 70.2, may be deferred by the applicable title V permitting
authority from title V permitting requirements for 5 years after the
date on which the EPA first approves a part 70 program (i.e., until
December 9, 1999). All sources receiving deferrals shall submit title V
permit applications within 12 months of such date (by December 9,
2000). All sources receiving deferrals still must meet compliance
schedule as stated in this Sec. 63.320.
Subpart X--[Amended]
9. Section 63.541 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.541 Applicability.
* * * * *
(c) The owner or operator of any source subject to the provisions
of the title 40, chapter I, part 63 subpart X is required to obtain a
title V permit from the applicable permitting authority in which the
affected source is located.
[FR Doc. 95-30260 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30108 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Approval of Stage II Vapor Recovery Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64001-64002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30108]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[PA 081-4012b; FRL-5326-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Approval of Stage II Vapor Recovery Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the purpose
of approving supplemental provisions that would correct deficiencies in
the Pennsylvania Stage II vapor recovery rule that were previously
identified by EPA. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register,
EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial SIP revision and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed 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
EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn
and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent
final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second
comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on
this action should do so at this time.
DATES: Comments must be received in writing by January 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to
Marcia L. Spink, Associate Director, Air Programs, Mailcode 3AT00, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107. Copies of the documents relevant to
this action are available for public inspection during normal business
hours at the Air, Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19107; and the Pennsylvania Department of
[[Page 64002]]
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400
Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia H. Stahl, (215) 597-9337, at
the EPA Region III address above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the Direct
Final action of the same title (Pennsylvania; Approval of Stage II
Vapor Recovery Requirements) which is located in the Rules and
Regulations Section of this Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: October 31, 1995.
W. Michael McCabe,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 95-30108 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30018 Regulatory Reform Initiative
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63983-63984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30018]
========================================================================
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. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 63983]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Commodity Credit Corporation
7 CFR Parts 1487, 1491, 1492 and 1495
Regulatory Reform Initiative
AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to the President's Regulatory Reform Initiative,
the Commodity Credit Corporation is proposing to amend its regulations
to eliminate the following programs: Noncommercial Risk Assurance
Program (GSM-101); CCC Intermediate Credit Export Sales Program for
Breeding Animals (GSM-201); CCC Intermediate Credit Export Sales
Program for Foreign Market Development Facilities (GSM-301); and
Disposition of Agricultural Commodities under the CCC Barter Program
(Barter Program).
These programs are inactive or obsolete and have not been used in
15 years or more.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: All comments concerning these proposed regulations should be
addressed to L.T. McElvain, Director, CCC Operations Division, Foreign
Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, AG Box 1035,
Washington, D.C., 20250-1035; FAX (202) 720-2949. All comments received
will be available for public inspection at the above address during
regular business hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L.T. McElvain, Director, CCC
Operations Division, at the address stated above. Telephone (202) 720-
6211. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits
discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national
origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs and marital
or familial status. Persons with disabilities who require alternative
means for communication of program information (braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of Communications at
(202) 720-5881 (voice) or (202) 720-7808 (TDD).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule is issued in conformance with Executive Order
12866. It has been determined to be neither significant nor
economically significant for the purposes of E.O. 12866 and, therefore,
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
It has been determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not
applicable to this proposed rule since CCC is not required by 5 U.S.C.
553 or any other provision of law to publish a notice of rulemaking
with respect to the subject matter of this rule.
Executive Order 12372
These programs are not subject to the provisions of Executive Order
12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and
local officials. See notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V,
published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983).
Environmental Evaluation
It has been determined by an environmental evaluation that this
action will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human
environment. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an
Environmental Impact Statement is needed.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The amendment to 7 CFR parts 1487, 1491, 1492 and 1495 set forth in
this proposed rule does not contain information collections that
require clearance by the OMB under the provisions of 44 U.S.C. 35.
Executive Order 12778
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. The proposed rule would not have preemptive
effect with respect to any state or local laws, regulations, or
policies which conflict with such provisions or which otherwise impede
their full implementation. The rule would not have retroactive effect.
The Department of Agriculture is committed to carrying out its
statutory and regulatory mandates in a manner that best serves the
public interest. Therefore, where legal discretion permits, the
Department actively seeks to promulgate regulations that promote
economic growth, create jobs, are minimally burdensome, and are easy
for the public to understand, use or comply with. In short, the
Department is committed to issuing regulations that maximize net
benefits to society and minimize costs imposed by those regulations.
Request for Public Comment
Comments are requested with respect to this proposed rule and such
comments shall be considered in developing the final rule.
Background
In response to the President's Regulatory Reform Initiative, the
Commodity Credit Corporation is proposing to amend Title 7 of the Code
of Federal Regulations to remove the following parts:
Part 1487--Noncommercial Risk Assurance Program (GSM-101);
Part 1491--CCC Intermediate Credit Export Sales Program
for Breeding Animals (GSM-201);
Part 1492--CCC Intermediate Credit Export Sales Program
for Foreign Market Development Facilities (GSM-301); and
Part 1495--Disposition of Agricultural Commodities under
the CCC Barter Program (Barter Program).
Reasons for Removal
CCC proposes to remove these parts for the following reasons:
GSM-101--This risk assurance program, implemented in 1979,
covered only non-commercial or political risk and became obsolete when
the CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102) was introduced in
1980 to cover political and commercial risk. The GSM-101 program was
last used in 1981.
GSM-201--This direct credit program has been used only
once (a transaction for livestock exports to Spain in 1979). The terms
available under the program--3 to 10 year direct credits--could be made
available under a modified GSM-5 Program (7 CFR Part 1488) Financing of
Sales of Agricultural Commodities Program.
[[Page 63984]]
GSM-301--This direct credit program was intended to
facilitate commodity exports which would be sold to generate funds to
finance the construction of a market development project. The program
was used only once (in connection with a bulk grain discharge and
storage facility developed at Ashdod, Israel). That project began in
1978 and was completed in the early 1980's. For a number of years,
funding has not been made available for this program.
Barter Program--From 1950 through 1973, CCC exchanged CCC-
owned agricultural commodities for strategic and critical materials for
the National Defense Stockpile. The program could also be used to
obtain foreign-produced supplies and services used in Department of
Defense construction projects and Agency for International Development
projects. The program was terminated in 1973 when CCC stocks were
depleted. The National Defense Stockpile is now liquidating many
strategic materials. Also, CCC has authority, which it has at times
used, to enter into direct barter arrangements under the CCC Charter
Act in order to obtain strategic materials for defense stock piles.
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 1487
Agricultural commodities, Exports, Insurance, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
7 CFR Parts 1491 and 1492
Exports, Livestock, Loan programs-agriculture, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
7 CFR Part 1495
Agricultural commodities, Exports, Government procurement,
Strategic and critical materials.
PARTS 1487, 1491, 1492, 1495--[REMOVED]
For the reasons set out in the preamble under the authority at 5
U.S.C. Section 552(a)(1)(E), it is proposed to amend 7 CFR Chapter XIV
by removing parts 1487, 1491, 1492 and 1495.
Signed at Washington, DC, on December 1, 1995.
Christopher E. Goldthwait,
General Sales Manager and Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation.
[FR Doc. 95-30018 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-10-P
Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.