18072 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 71 / Monday, April 14, 1997 / Proposed Rules

2Section 110(k)(1)(B) provides that SIP revisions

that have not been determined by EPA to be

incomplete by 6 months after receipt shall on that

date be deemed by operation of law to meet the

minimum criteria for completeness. EPA’s

completeness rule is set forth in 40 CFR Part 51,

Appendix V, which establishes the minimum

criteria that a plan revision must meet before EPA

is required to act on the submission.

and remove the condition on the

approval of California’s opt-out of the

CAA fleet program.

On May 13, 1994, the SCAQMD

adopted Rule 1504, establishing a

parking cash-out program for parking

not owned by the employer. On July 8,

1994, Rule 1504 was submitted as a SIP

revision to help meet the requirements

of section 187(a)(3) of the Act, relating

to carbon monoxide (CO) SIP

contingency measures. On January 8,

1995, the revision became complete by

operation of law.2

The rule serves as a contingency

measure to be triggered if the South

Coast CO SIP’s annual estimates of

vehicle miles traveled are exceeded or

EPA makes a finding, which is required

by the CAA, that the South Coast has

failed to attain the CO NAAQS by the

year 2000.

Regulatory Process

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises and government entities

with jurisdiction over population of less

than 50,000.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and

301(a) and subchapter I, Part D of the

CAA do not create any new

requirements, but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP-approval does not impose

any new requirements, I certify that it

does not have a significant impact on

any small entities affected. Moreover,

due to the nature of the Federal-state

relationship under the CAA, preparation

of a regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S. Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410 (a)(2).

Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’),

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must undertake various actions in

association with proposed or final rules

that include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to the private sector or to State,

Local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate.

Through submission of this SIP or

plan revision, the State and any affected

local or tribal governments have elected

to adopt the program provided for under

Part D of the Act. These rules may bind

State, local, and tribal governments to

perform certain actions and also require

the private sector to perform certain

duties. The rules being proposed for by

this action will impose no new

requirements because affected sources

are already subject to these regulations

under State law. Therefore, no

additional costs to State, Local, or tribal

governments or to the private sector

result from this action. EPA has also

determined that this proposed action

does not include a mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate or to the

private sector.

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order

12866 review.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental

relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: March 31, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–9581 Filed 4–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 247

[SWH–FRL–5810–8]

RIN 2050–AE23

Comprehensive Guideline for

Procurement of Products Containing

Recovered Materials; Proposal To

Designate Ink Jet Cartridges

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Data Availability.

SUMMARY: This notice summarizes

information submitted in response to

the Environmental Protection Agency’s

November 7, 1996 proposal to designate

ink jet cartridges as a procurement item

under section 6002 of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act. Based

on this new information, the Agency

believes that there is insufficient

evidence to support a designation at this

time. As a result, the Agency has

tentatively decided it will not include

ink jet cartridges as a designated item in

the final Comprehensive Procurement

Guideline when it is promulgated. This

notice summarizes the information

available to the Agency and requests

additional information from interested

parties.

DATES: EPA will accept public

comments on the information in this

notice until May 14, 1997.

ADDRESSES: To comment on this notice,

send an original and two copies of

comments to: RCRA Information Center

(5305W), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20460. Reference docket number F–

96–CP2P–FFFFF on the comments.

If any information is confidential, it

should be identified as such. An

original and two copies of Confidential

Business Information (CBI) must be

submitted under separate cover to:

Document Control Officer (5305W),

Office of Solid Waste, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.

Documents related to the proposal to

designate ink jet cartridges are available

for viewing at the RCRA Information

Center (RIC), which is located at: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1235

Jefferson Davis Highway, Ground Floor,

Crystal Gateway One, Arlington, VA

22202. The RIC is open from 9:00 a.m.

to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except for Federal holidays. The public

must make an appointment to review

docket materials by calling (703) 603–

9230. Copies cost $.15 per page.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 71 / Monday, April 14, 1997 / Proposed Rules 18073

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

General procurement guidelines

information: RCRA Hotline at (800)

424–9346, TDD (800) 553–7672 (hearing

impaired) or, in the Washington, DC

area at (703) 412–9810.

Proposed ink jet cartridge

designation: Dana Arnold, (703) 308–

7279.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

November 7, 1996, EPA proposed to

designate ink jet cartridges as a

procurement item under section 6002 of

the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA). (See 61 FR

57747.) Based on a preliminary

evaluation of public comments and

additional information submitted in

response to the proposal, the Agency

has tentatively concluded that the

record does not support a designation of

ink jet cartridges at this time.

I. Authority

42 U.S.C. 6912(a) and 6962; E.O.

12873, 58 FR 54911.

II. Background

Section 6002(e) of RCRA requires EPA

to designate items that are or can be

made with recovered materials and to

recommend practices to assist procuring

agencies in meeting their obligations

with respect to designated items under

RCRA section 6002. After EPA

designates an item, RCRA requires that

each procuring agency, when

purchasing a designated item, must

purchase that item composed of the

highest percentage of recovered

materials practicable.

Executive Order 12873 (the Executive

Order) establishes the procedure for

EPA to follow in implementing RCRA

section 6002(e). Section 502 of the

Executive Order directs EPA to issue a

Comprehensive Procurement Guideline

(CPG) that designates items that are or

can be made with recovered materials.

Concurrent with the CPG, EPA must

publish its recommended procurement

practices for purchasing designated

items, including recovered materials

content levels, in a related Recovered

Materials Advisory Notice (RMAN). The

Executive Order also directs EPA to

update the CPG annually and to issue

RMANs periodically to reflect changing

market conditions. The first CPG was

published on May 1, 1995 (60 FR

21370). It established eight product

categories, including Non-Paper Office

Products, and designated items within

those categories.

On November 7, 1996 (61 FR 57747),

EPA proposed to designate 13

additional items in the CPG (CPG II).

The CPG II proposal included ink jet

cartridges in the Non-Paper Office

Products category. Ink jet cartridges are

used in office equipment such as

printers, facsimile machines, and

plotters. They consist of plastic cases

containing ink, a pump, filters, internal

circuitry, and print heads (nozzles).

In the background documents for the

proposed CPG II and the companion

draft RMAN, EPA discussed why it had

initially concluded that ink jet

cartridges were items that are or may be

produced with recovered materials

content. EPA explained that spent ink

jet cartridges could be refilled or

remanufactured. Consequently, in

Section G–7 of the companion draft

RMAN (61 FR 57760), EPA’s tentative

recommendations suggested that, in

order to procure ink jet cartridges,

agencies adopt one or both of the

following approaches. An agency could:

(1) procure ink jet cartridge refilling

services or (2) procure refilled ink jet

cartridges. EPA further recommended

that procuring agencies establish

policies giving priority to refilling their

spent ink jet cartridges and, if refilling

services are unavailable or impractical,

to purchase refilled ink jet cartridges.

III. Issues Raised by Commenters

Commenters raised a number of

concerns in response to EPA’s proposal

to designate ink jet cartridges. These

included the impact of the proposed ink

jet cartridge designation on the solid

waste stream, the performance of

refilled ink jet cartridges, and product

availability.

Subsequent to the close of the public

comment period, EPA met with one of

the commenters (a major manufacturer

of ink jet equipment and ink jet

cartridges) to discuss the proposed ink

jet cartridge designation. Minutes of this

meeting have been added to RCRA

Docket F–96–CP2P–FFFFF to make the

information received at the meeting

available for public review. In addition,

EPA contacted the U.S. General Services

Administration’s (GSA) Federal Supply

Service to discuss GSA’s public

comments on the proposed ink jet

cartridge designation and issues raised

by the ink jet equipment manufacturers.

A summary of information obtained

during these conversations has also

been added to RCRA Docket F–96-CP2PFFFFF.

A. Impact on the Solid Waste Stream

One of the underlying purposes of the

procurement guidelines program is to

harness Federal purchasing power to

develop markets for materials recovered

from solid waste. As explained above,

once EPA designates an item, RCRA

section 6002 requires a procuring

agency to purchase a designated item

containing the highest percentage of

recovered materials practical. This

means that EPA’s designations can help

to create markets for recovered materials

by creating markets for products made

from those materials. Given this

potential, an important element that

EPA considers in its designation

decision is whether designation of a

particular item will significantly reduce

discarded materials in the solid waste

stream through the promotion of the

recovery of materials, including postconsumer materials. Thus, when

considering whether to designate an

item, EPA examines the likely impact of

the designation on the volume of solid

waste generated and discarded

annually.

In the background document for the

proposed CPG II, ‘‘Comprehensive

Procurement Guideline (CPG) II—

Supporting Analyses,’’ EPA stated that

ink jet cartridges are composed

primarily of plastic, and plastics

constituted 10 percent of municipal

solid waste in 1994. Approximately 80

to 90 million ink jet cartridges are

discarded annually. EPA was not able to

quantify the amount of ink jet cartridges

discarded by Federal agencies, however.

Commenters noted that ink jet

cartridges weigh approximately 1.40

ounces, which would equate to 3,400–

3,900 tons of plastic discards annually.

The plastics comprising the largest

fraction of the municipal solid waste

stream are polyethylene terephthalate

(PET), high density polyethylene

(HDPE), low density polyethylene

(LDPE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC),

polypropylene (PP), and polystyrene

(PS). Items designated in the original

CPG contain one or more of these

plastics, thus helping to create markets

for these larger constituents of the

plastics waste stream. By contrast,

commenters stated that ink jet cartridges

contain a specialty plastic and currently

cannot be made with recovered

materials. Therefore, designating ink jet

cartridges would not create end-use

markets for plastics recovered from

municipal solid waste and would not

have a significant impact on the solid

waste stream.

In addition, it has been brought to

EPA’s attention that ink jet cartridge

refill kits generate a larger volume of

solid waste than discarded ink jet

cartridges, including the packaging. The

kits include plastic containers for the

replacement ink, tools for puncturing

the cartridges in order to add the ink,

and plastic and paper packaging.

According to the information provided

to EPA through public comments, refill

kits have a three to four times larger
18074 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 71 / Monday, April 14, 1997 / Proposed Rules

share of the refill market than do

vendors that refill and return ink jet

cartridges to the user. Thus, the initial

result of an ink jet cartridge designation

could well be a net increase in solid

waste, albeit a small increase when

compared to the total amount of solid

waste generated annually.

B. Performance

EPA’s initial research indicated

inconsistent quality among the ink jet

cartridge refill kits and between the

products of the ink jet cartridge refillers.

EPA’s research also indicated a lack of

quality control standards for refillers

and refill kits. Thus, while some

refillers are able to produce refilled ink

jet cartridges with acceptable

performance characteristics, others have

not been able to do so consistently.

Because there are no testing or other

quality control standards for procuring

agencies to reference in their

solicitations, the quality of refilled ink

jet cartridges may be of concern.

Further, EPA’s initial research

indicated that users of refilled ink jet

cartridges had sometimes experienced

clogged nozzles and other performance

problems. EPA has received additional

information in the public comments that

indicates performance problems have

occurred. According to one commenter,

refilled ink jet cartridges can create a

number of problems, ranging from

diminished ink quality to interference

with the proper operation of the ink jet

nozzle. Commenters also provided

anecdotal information that faulty

refilled ink jet cartridges can and have

caused damage to the office equipment

in which they were used. EPA discussed

these performance concerns with GSA

and found that, because GSA has offered

refilled ink jet cartridges only recently,

no record of customer satisfaction has

been established. EPA seeks additional

information about the performance of

refilled ink jet cartridges, in particular

the potential for damage to office

equipment caused by the use of this

item.

EPA also has received conflicting

information about whether ink jet

cartridges are designed to be refilled.

Some original equipment manufacturers

stated, in their public comments, that

the components in ink jet cartridges are

designed to last only for the supply of

original ink. In other words, ink jet

cartridges are designed to be disposable.

However, there is evidence that ink jet

cartridges can and are being refilled and

can perform adequately, even if they are

not performing identically to a new

replacement ink jet cartridge.

C. Product Availability

EPA’s initial research identified 24

companies that refill ink jet cartridges

for customers nationwide. In its

comments, a major manufacturer of new

replacement ink jet cartridges

questioned whether refillers offer

national coverage, particularly to rural

areas, although this manufacturer did

not provide any hard evidence to the

contrary. This manufacturer also

commented that its products are

available immediately, while refilled

ink jet cartridges may not be available

immediately. Again, the manufacturer

did not substantiate this statement.

EPA has never limited its

designations only to items that are

available immediately in every part of

the United States. Because the purpose

of the federal buy-recycled program is to

develop markets for products containing

recovered materials, it has always been

understood that these items might not

be available to all procuring agencies in

all instances. Rather, it is expected that,

as procuring agencies seek to purchase

products containing recovered

materials, these items will become more

widely and universally available. For

this reason, RCRA section 6002 provides

that procuring agencies are not required

to buy an EPA-designated item

containing recovered materials if that

item is not available within a reasonable

time. Nevertheless, the availability of

refilling services and refilled ink jet

cartridges is a consideration for EPA

when designating ink jet cartridges.

Therefore, EPA seeks additional

information about the availability of

refilled ink jet cartridges and refilling

services.

IV. Conclusion

Usage of ink jet printers, facsimile

machines, and plotters is increasing

rapidly. The ink jet cartridge supplier

industry also is evolving rapidly, as is

the technology to refill ink jet cartridges.

EPA believes that, consistent with the

Agency’s waste management hierarchy,

which promotes waste prevention and

recycling, ink jet cartridges should be

designed to be refillable and/or

recyclable, rather than disposable.

However, these products must serve

their intended purpose and perform in

an acceptable manner. While the

Agency acknowledges that some refilled

ink jet cartridges may be of high quality,

the questions about the performance of

refilled cartridges discussed by

commenters raise legitimate concerns

that warrant further consideration

before the Agency designates ink jet

cartridges in the CPG. Moreover,

designation of ink jet cartridges would

not have a significant impact on the

solid waste stream because the specialty

plastic used in these cartridges cannot

currently be made with recovered

materials. There is, in addition, some

concern that designation could actually

result, in the near term, in a small

increase in the generation of solid waste

associated with ink jet cartridges. At

this time, ink jet cartridge refill kits are

generating more waste than discarded

cartridges. Based on these factors, EPA

has tentatively concluded that it is

premature to designate ink jet cartridges

at this time. EPA solicits comment on

the information discussed in this notice

and on the other newly docketed

information referenced in this notice.

Dated: April 8, 1997.

David A. Bussard,

Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste.

[FR Doc. 97–9517 Filed 4–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 1

[CS Docket No. 97–98; FCC 97–94]

Amendment of Rules and Policies

Governing Pole Attachments

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In 1987, the Commission

adopted its current pole attachment

formula for calculating the maximum

just and reasonable rates utilities may

charge cable operators for pole

attachments. In this Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, we seek comment as to

whether the current pole attachment

formula should be modified or adjusted

to eliminate certain anomalies and rate

instabilities particular parties assert

have occurred. Should altering the

formula become necessary, we have

tentatively proposed a modification that

would improve the formula’s accuracy.

In addition, we propose changes to the

formula to reflect the present accounting

system that replaced the former rules in

1988. Finally, we propose a new

conduit methodology that will

determine the maximum just and

reasonable rates utilities may charge

cable operators and telecommunications

service providers for their use of

conduit systems.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

May 12, 1997 and Reply Comments are

due on or before June 12, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,