P.1 

-

OAR Box 1153 

Prepped by Candice Davis 

Document Number: 

9) FED REG VOL. 55, NO. 221 11/15/90 

Docket Number: 

A-87-20 

Printed 5/9/2008 11:25:59 AM Sheet 9 of 60 
P.2 

AW 

Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 221 / Thursday, Novembe r 15, 1990 / Rules an d Regulations 47753 

§250.87 [Amended] 

12. Section 250.87, in the first sentence 

of paragraph (d) add the phrase "shall 

have a pressure rating greater than the 

shut-in tubing pressure and" between 

the words "equipment" and "shall". 

§250.107 [Amended] 

13. Section 250.107, in the first 

sentence of paragraph (d) add the 

phrase "shall have a pressure rating 

greater than the shut-in tubing pressure 

and" between the words "equipment" 

and "shall". 

§250.123 [Amended] 

14. Section 250.123, in the first 

sentence of paragraph (b)(l)(iii) remove 

the phrase "a significant change in 

operating pressures" and add in its 

place the phrase "a change in operating 

pressures that requires new settings for 

the high-pressure shut-in sensor and/or 

the low-pressure shut-in sensor as 

provided herein". 

§250.123 [Amended] 

15. Section 250.123, in the first 

sentence of paragraph (b)(7) 

introductory text remove the phrase 

"section A8" and add in its place the 

phrase "sections A4 and A8". 

§250.124 [Amended] 

16. Section 250.124, remove the last 

sentence of paragraph (a)(l)(ii). 

§250.126 [Amended] 

17. Section 250.126, in paragraph 

(e)(2), remove the phrase "API RP 14A 

or API RP 14D" and add in its place the 

phrase "API Spec 14A or API Spec 14D". 

§ 250.159 [Amended] 

18. Section 250.159, in paragraph 

{

c

)(7)(i), add the phrase "determine to be 

reasonable, taking into account, among 

other things," between the words 

"parties," and "conservation". 

(FR Doc. 90-26906 Filed 11-14-90; 8:45 am] 

SILLING COOE 4310-MR-M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

ICGD7-90-761 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; St. 

Johns River, FL 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: At the request of the State of 

Florida, ihe Coast Guard is changing the 

regulations.' governing the operation of 

llirtu; drawbridges across the Sl. Johns 

River at Jacksonville, Florida, the Main 

Street (US17) Bridge, mile 24.7, the 

Acosta (SR13) Bridge, mile 24.9 and the 

Fuller Warren (110/195) Bridge, mile 25.4, 

in order to improve the flow of peak 

morning commuter traffic. This action 

accommodates the needs of vehicular 

traffic and still provides for the 

reasonable needs of navigation. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: These regulations 

become effective on December 17,1990. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gary D. Pruitt, (305) 536-4103. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

August 17,1990 the Coast Guard 

published a proposed rule (55 FR 33723) 

concerning this change. The 

Commander, Seventh Coast Guard 

District, also published the proposal as 

Public Notice 24-90 dated August 24, 

1990. 

Interested persons were given until 

October 1,1990 to comment. 

Drafting Information 

The drafters of these regulations are 

Bridge Administration Specialist Gary 

D. Pruitt, project officer, and Lieutenant 

Genelle G. Tanos, project attorney. 

Discussion of Comments 

No comments were received on the 

proposed change. The final rule is 

unchanged from the proposed rule 

published on August 17,1990. 

Federalism 

This action has been analyzed in 

accordance with the principals and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

12612, and it has been determined that 

the final rulemaking does not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

warrant the preparation of a Federalism 

Assessment. 

Economic Assessment and Certification 

These regulations are considered to 

be non-major under Executive Order 

12291 on Federal Regulation and 

nonsignificant under the Department of 

Transportation regulatory policies and 

procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 

1979). The economic impact is expected 

to be so minimal that a full regulatory 

evaluation is unnecessary. We conclude 

this because the final rulemaking will 

not change the total amount of time 

these bridges are allowed to be 

maintained in the closed position. Since 

the economic impact of these regulations 

is expected to be minimal, the Coast 

Guard certifies that it will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Pari 117 

Bridges. 

Regulations 

In consideration of the foregoing, part 

117 of title 33, Code of Federal 

Regulations, is amended as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 USC 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 

1.05-l(g). _ . . 

2. Section 117i325(a) is revised to read 

as follows: 

§117.325 St Johns River. 

(a) The draws of the Main Street 

(US17) Bridge, mile 24.7, the Acosta 

(SR13) Bridge, mile 24.9 and the Fuller 

Warren (110/195) Bridge, mile 25.4, all at 

Jacksonville, shall open on signal except 

that, from 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 

p.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday 

except federal holidays, the draws need 

not be opened for the passage of 

vessels. The draws shall open at any 

time for vessels in an emergency 

involving life or property. 

Dated: October 29,1990. 

Robert E. Kratnek, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Se venth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 90-26897 Filed 11-14-90; 8:45 am| 

BILLING CODE 4910-14-W 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR 82 

IFRL-3860-9] 

y 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Technical amendment. 

SUMMARY: Today's notice amends the 

list of Article 5 Parties in appendix E of. 

the stratospheric ozone protection 

regulations (40CFR part 82). Article 5 

Parties are developing countries that are 

Party to the Montreal Protocol on 

Substances that Deplete the Ozone 

Layer and whose per capita 

consumption of certain 

chlorofluorocarbons controlled by the 

Protocol is less than 0.3 kilograms. The 

Protocol and EPA's implementing 

regulations permit companies that 

export controlled substances to Article 5 

Parties to increase their production of 

such substances up to the specified 

limits. The countries added to appendix 

E today have been designated by the 
P.3 

47754 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 

United Nations Environmental 

Programme (UNEP), which serves as the 

Protocol's Secretariat, as Parties 

operating under Article 5. The countries 

are Jordan and Malaysia. This 

amendment also clarifies the Agency's 

position regarding the granting of 

requests for authorizations to convert 

potential production rights to actual 

production rights after the end of the 

control period. 

DATES: This technical amendment is 

effective November 15,1990. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and other 

information relevant to this rulemaking 

are maintained in Docket A-87-20 at the 

Air Docket Room M-1500, First Floor, 

Waterside Mall, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20460. The docket may 

be inspected between 8 a.m. and 3:30 

p.m. on weekdays. As provided in 20 

CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be 

charged for photocopying. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lena Nirk, Stratospheric Ozone 

Protection Branch, Global Change 

Division, Office of Atmospheric and 

Indoor Air Programs, Office of Air and 

Radiation, ANR-445, 401 M Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20460. (202) 382-7750. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

August 12,1988, EPA promulgated a 

final rule to limit the production and 

consumption of certain 

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and 

brominated compounds (halons) to 

reduce the risks of stratospheric ozone 

depletion. The rule implements the 

requirements of the Montreal Protocol, 

which the United States ratified on April 

21,1988, by allocating production and 

consumption allowances to firms that 

produced, and imported these chemicals 

in 1986, based on their 1986 levels of 

these activities. In addition, producers 

received potential production 

allowances equal to 10 percent of their 

1986 production levels. These potential 

production allowances can be converted 

to production allowancss upon proof of 

export of controlled substances to 

Article 5 Parties. 

Amendment to Appendix E 

On June 22,1990 the Agency published 

a final rule designating three countries 

as Article 5 Parties in appendix E (55 FR 

25812). These countries are Mexico, 

Venezuela and Thailand. At that time, 

the Agency noted that it would amend 

that list if additional information 

warranted or if the Secretariat formally 

designated a country as an Article 5 

Party. The Agency stated that if the 

Secretariat made such a designation, the 

Agency would view the addition of that 

country to appendix E as a purely 

ministerial task for which notice and 

comment was not necessary. 

At the London meetings held in June, 

1990 to revise the Protocol, the 

Secretariat published the Revised 

Report on Data on Production.Imports, 

Exports and Consumption of Substances 

• Listed in Annex A of the Montreal 

Protocol. In communications with the 

Secretariat, EPA learned that this report 

has again been revised based on data 

received June 19,1990. This revised 

report designates additional countries as 

Parties to the Protocol operating under 

Article 5 status. Two of the countries, 

Venezuela and Mexico, were designated 

as Article 5 Parties in appendix E in the 

June, 1990 final rule. Jordan and 

Malaysia are added to appendix E today 

based on their designation as Article 5 

Parties by the Secretariat. This revised 

appendix E is effective retroactively for 

the first control period. 

As stated in the June 22,1990 final 

rule, EPA reserves the right to modify 

this list based on additional information, 

or if the Secretariat further designates 

Parties as operating under Article 5. As 

in today's technical amendment, if the 

Secretariat formally designates a 

country as an Article 5 Party, the 

Agency views the addition of that 

country to appendix E as purely a 

ministerial task for which notice and 

comment are unnecessary. If the Agency 

receives information which would lead 

it to classify a country as an Article 5 

Party, the Agency will propose to add 

the country to appendix E through notice 

and comment rulemaking if it has not 

been formerly designated by UNEP. 

Granting of Requests for Authorizations 

to Convert 

The Agency has had several requests 

for information regarding the granting of 

requests for authorizations to convert 

after the end of the control period. 

Authorizations are required to convert 

potential production allowances to 

production allowances, and are granted 

for exports to Article 5 countries. 

Because additional allowances and 

authorizations from exports are only 

valid for the control period in which the 

export occurred, the Agency did not 

anticipate receiving requests after the 

end of the control period. As a result of 

an exemption to the excise tax on CFCs 

for exports to Article 5 countries, 

however, some companies have 

requested authorization to convert after 

the end of the control period which 

ended June 30,1990. The authorizations 

to convert allow companies to designate 

previous production as production 

exported to Article 5 countries. Such 

production is exempt from the tax. 

The Agency intends to allow 

companies to request authorizations to 

convert for 45 days after the end of the 

control period (the same amount of time 

allowed for submission of the final 

quarterly reports). This time limit only 

applies to submissions documenting 

exports to existing Article 5 countries. 

The approval letter will clearly spell out 

that these authorizations may not be 

used in the current control period. After 

45 days, the control period is "closed" 

and not further requests will be 

processed. Requests for authorizations 

to convert for exports are the only 

transactions that will be approved after 

the end of the control period (except for 

the final quarterly reports and end-ofyear export reports). No other 

transactions will be approved after the 

end of the control period (including all 

trades, transfers and feedstock 

requests). The Agency intends to follow 

this procedure as an administrative 

interpretation of the final rule, without 

further rulemaking. 

Additional Information 

1. Executive Order 12291 

Executive order (E.O.) 12291 requires 

the preparation of a regulatory impact 

analysis for major rules, defined by the 

order as those likely to result in: 

(1) An annual effect on the economy of 

$100 million or more; 

(2) A major increase in cost or prices 

for consumers, individual industries, 

federal, state or local government 

agencies, or geographic industries; or 

(3) Significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation or on the ability 

of the United States-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign based enterprises 

in domestic or export markets. 

EPA determined that its August 12, 

1988 final rule to protect stratospheric 

ozone met with the definition of a major 

rule, and therefore prepared a regulatory 

impact analysis (RIA). Since these 

amendments do not impose any 

significant burdens as defined by E.O. 

12291, the RIA prepared for the final rule 

fulfills the executive order's requirement 

for these proposals. 

2. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 

U.S.C. 601-612, requires that Federal 

agencies examine the impacts of their 

regulations on small entities. Under 5 

U.S.C. 604(a), whenever an agency is 

required to publish a general notice of 

proposed rulemaking, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

and initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

(RFA). Such and analysis is not required 
P.4 

Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 221 / Thursday, November 15, 1990 / Rules and Regulations 47755 

if the head of the agency certifies that a 

rule will not have a significant impact 

on a large number of small entities, 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b). EPA 

prepared an initial RFA in support of its 

final rule, and no additional RFA need 

be prepared for these amendments. 

3. List'of Docket Material 

(1) Report of the Executive Director of 

the United Nations Environment 

Programme, Secretariat of the Montreal 

Protocol, Addendum: Revised Report on 

Data on Production, Imports, Exports 

and Consumption of Substances Listed 

in Annex A of the Montreal Protocol. 

(2) Fax to Lena Nirk, Global Change 

Division, from Megumi Seki, Ozone 

Secretariat 

• Dated: November 2,1990. 

Michael Shapiro, 

Acting Assistant Administrator. 

List of Subject in 40 CFR Part 82 

Stratospheric Ozone. 

PART 82—PROTECTION OF 

STRATOSPHERIC OZONE 

1. The Authority citation for part 82 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7457 (b) 

2. Part 82 is amended by revising 

appendix E to read as follows: 

Appendix E—Article 5 Parties 

Mexico, Venezuela, Thailand, Jordan, 

Malaysia. 

[FR Doc 90-26933 Filed 11-14-90; 8:45 am] 

I BILLING COOE 8560-50-M 

ACTION 

45 CFR Part 1214 

Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on 

the Basis of Handicap in Programs or 

Activities Conducted by ACTION 

AGENCY: ACTION. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation requires that 

ACTION operate all of its programs and 

activities so that qualified handicapped 

persons are not subjected to 

discrimination by ACTION. It sets forth 

standards for what constitutes 

discrimination on the basis of mental or 

physical handicap, provides a definition 

for handicapped person and qualified 

handicapped person, and establishes a 

detailed complaint mechanism for 

resolving allegations of discrimination 

against ACTION. Thi3 regulation 

implements section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 

which prohibits discrimination on the 

basis of handicap in programs or 

activities conducted by Federal 

executive agencies. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 14,1991. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nancy Voss, Director, .Equal 

Opportunity Staff, ACTION at (202) 634-

9312 (Voice) or (202) 634-9256 (TDD). 

These are not toll-free numbers. Copies 

of this regulation are available cn tape 

for persons with visual impairments. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The purpose of this rule is to provide 

for the enforcement of section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

(29 U.S.C. 794), as it applies to programs 

and activities conducted by ACTION. 

As amended by the Rehabilitation, 

Comprehensive Services, and 

Development Disabilities Amendments 

of 1978 (Sec. 199, Pub. L. 95-602, 92 Stat. 

2982), section 504 of the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973 states that: 

No otherwise qualified individual with 

handicaps in the United States, * * * shall, 

solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded 

from the participation in, be denied the 

benefits of. or be subjected to discrimination 

under any program or activity receiving 

Federal financial assistance or under any 

program or activity conducted by any 

Executive agency or by the United States 

Postal Service. The head of each such agency 

shall promulgate such regulations as may be 

necessary to carry out the amendments to 

this section made by the Rehabilitation, 

Comprehensive Services, and Developmental 

Disabilities Act of 1978. Copies of any 

proposed regulation shall be submitted to 

appropriate authorizing committees of 

Congress, and such regulation may take 

effect no earlier than the thirtieth day after 

the date on which such regulation is so 

submitted to such committees. 

On September 18,1989, ACTION 

published a notice of proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) for the enforcement 

of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 

of 1973, as amended, which prohibits 

discrimination on the basis of handicap, 

as it applies to programs and activities 

conducted by ACTION. 54 FR 38401. 

ACTION received one response with 

comments on the NPRM. After analysis 

of the comments received and the final 

section 504 regulation that the 

Department of Justice issued for its own 

programs and activities, ACTION 

decided to adopt this final rule. 

The substantive nondiscrimination 

obligations of the agency, as set forth in 

this rule, are identical, for the most part, 

to those established by Federal 

regulations for programs or activities 

receiving Federal financial assistance. 

(See 28 CFR part 41 (section 504 

coordination regulation for federaliv 

assisted programs)). This general 

parallelism is in accord with the intent 

expressed by supporters of the 1978 

amendment in floor debate, including its 

sponsor. Rep. James M. Jeffords, that the 

Federal government should have the 

same section 504 obligations as 

recipients of Federal financial 

assistance. 124 Cong. Rec. 13901 (1978) 

(remarks of Rep. Jeffords); 124 Cong. 

Rec. E2668, E2670 (daily ed. May 17, 

1978) id; 124 Cong. Rec. 13897 (remarks 

of Rep. Brademas); id. at 38552 (remarks 

of Rep. Sarasin). 

There are, however, some language 

differences between this rule and the 

Federal government's section 504 

regulations for federally assisted 

programs. These changes are based on 

the Supreme Court's decision in 

Southeastern Community College v. 

Davis, 442 U.S. 397 (1979), and the 

subsequent circuit court decisions 

interpreting Davis and section 504. See 

Dopico v. Goldschmidt, 687 F.2d 1272 

(D.C. Cir. 1981) [APTA); see also Rhode 

Island Handicapped Action Committee 

v. Rhode Island Public Transit 

Authority, 718 F.2d 490 (1st Cir. 1983). 

These language differences are also 

supported by the decision of the 

Supreme Court in Alexander v. Choate, 

469 U.S. 287 (1985), where the Court held 

that the regulations for federally 

assisted programs did not require a 

recipient to modify its durational 

limitation on Medicaid coverage of 

inpatient hospital care for handicapped 

persons. Clarifying its Davis decision, 

the Court explained that section 504 

requires only "reasonable" 

modifications, id. at 300, and explicitly 

noted that "[the regulations 

implementing 504 [for federally assisted 

programs) are consistent with the view 

that reasonable adjustments in the 

nature of the benefit offered must at 

times be made to assure meaningful 

access.)" Id. at 301 n.21 [emphasis 

added). 

Incorporation of these changes, 

therefore, makes this regulation 

implementing section 504 Federally 

conducted programs consistent with the 

Federal government's regulations 

implementing section 504 for federally 

assisted programs as they have been 

interpreted by the Supreme Court. Many 

of these federally assisted regulations 

were issued prior to the interpretations 

of section 504 by the Supreme Court in 

Davis, by lower courts interpreting 

Davis, and by the Supreme Court in 

Alexander, therefore their language dees 

not reflect the interpretation of section 

504 provided by the Supreme Court and 

by the various circuit courts. Of course, 

these federally assisted regulations must