63962 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

with the Hearing Clerk should be

submitted to the OPP docket for this

rulemaking. The objections submitted

must specify the provisions of the

regulation deemed objectionable and the

grounds for the objections (40 CFR

178.25). Each objection must be

accompanied by the fee prescribed by

40 CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is

requested, the objections must include a

statement of the factual issue(s) on

which a hearing is requested, the

requestor’s contentions on such issues,

and a summary of any evidence relied

upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A

request for a hearing will be granted if

the Administrator determines that the

material submitted shows the following:

There is a genuine and substantial issue

of fact; there is a reasonable possibility

that available evidence identified by the

requestor would, if established, resolve

one or more of such issues in favor of

the requestor, taking into account

uncontested claims or facts to the

contrary; and resolution of the factual

issue(s) in the manner sought by the

requestor would be adequate to justify

the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).

A record has been established for this

rulemaking under docket number [PP

8F3607/R2184] (including any

objections and hearing requests

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.

Written objections and hearing

requests, identified by the document

control number [PP 8F3607/R2184],

may be submitted to the Hearing Clerk

(1900), Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. 3708, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

A copy of electronic objections and

hearing requests filed with the Hearing

Clerk can be sent directly to EPA at:

opp-Docket@epamail.epa.gov.

A copy of electronic objections and

hearing requests filed with the Hearing

Clerk 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 any objections and hearing

requests 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 objections and hearing

requests 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

review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) and the requirements of

the Executive Order. Under section 3(f),

the order defines a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as an action that is

likely to result in 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

referred to 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 the

rights and obligations of recipients

thereof; 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 the 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, 40 CFR part 180 is

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.

2. In § 180.473, by revising paragraph

(a), to read as follows:

§ 180.473 Glufosinate ammonium;

tolerances for residues.

(a)(1) Time-limited tolerances are

established for residues of the herbicide

glufosinate ammonium (butanoic acid,

2-amino-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl)-,

monoammonium salt) and its

metabolite, 3-methylphosphinicopropionic acid, in or on the following

raw agricultural commodities:

Commodity Parts per

million

Expiration

date

Almond hulls ..... 0.50 July 13,

1999

Apples ............... 0.05 Do.

Cattle, fat .......... 0.05 Do.

Cattle, meat ...... 0.05 Do.

Cattle, mbyp ..... 0.10 Do.

Goats, fat .......... 0.05 Do.

Goats, meat ...... 0.05 Do.

Goats, mbyp ..... 0.10 Do.

Grapes .............. 0.05 Do.

Hogs, fat ........... 0.05 Do.

Hogs, meat ....... 0.05 Do.

Hogs, mbyp ...... 0.10 Do.

Horses, fat ........ 0.05 Do.

Horses, meat .... 0.05 Do.

Horses, mbyp ... 0.10 Do.

Milk ................... 0.02 Do.

Sheep, fat ......... 0.05 Do.

Sheep, meat ..... 0.05 Do.

Sheep, mbyp .... 0.10 Do.

Tree nuts group 0.1 Do.

(2) Residues in these commodities not

in excess of the established tolerances

resulting from the uses described in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section

remaining after expiration of the timelimited tolerance will not be considered

to be actionable if the herbicide is

applied during the term of and in

accordance with the provisions of

paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–30117 Filed 12–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 63963

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE

ARTS AND HUMANITIES

45 CFR Part 1180

Institute of Museum Services: General

Operating Support, Conservation

Project Support, Museum Assessment

Program, Conservation Assessment

Program

AGENCY: Institute of Museum Services,

NFAH.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Institute of Museum

Services amends regulations relating to

its General Operating Support,

Conservation Project Support grant

programs, the Museum Assessment

Program and the Conservation

Assessment Program. The regulations as

amended implement the Museum

Services Act. The amendments make

technical and other changes in the

eligibility conditions, use of funds,

amount of awards, reporting

requirements and remove unneeded

provisions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 13, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rebecca Danvers, Program Director,

Telephone: (202) 606–8539.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Background

The Museum Services Act (‘‘the Act’’)

which is Title II of the Arts, Humanities

and Cultural Affairs Act of 1976, was

enacted on October 8, 1976 and

amended in 1980, 1982, 1984, 1985,

1988, 1990, 1991, 1993 and 1994). The

purpose of the Act is stated in section

202 as follows:

It is the purpose of the Museum

Services Act to encourage and assist

museums in their educational role in

conjunction with formal systems of

elementary, secondary, and post

secondary education and with programs

of non-formal education for all age

groups: to assist museums in

modernizing their methods and

facilities so that they may be better able

to conserve our cultural, historic, and

scientific heritage and to ease the

financial burden borne by museums as

a result of their increasing use by the

public.

The Act establishes an Institute of

Museum Services (IMS) consisting of a

National Museums Services Board and

Director.

The Act provides that the National

Museum Services Board shall consist of

fifteen members appointed for fixed

terms by the President with the advice

and consent of the Senate. The

Chairman of the Board is designated by

the President from the appointed

members. Members are broadly

representative of various museum

disciplines, including those relating to

science, history, technology, art, zoos,

and botanical gardens; of the curatorial,

educational, and cultural resources of

the United States; and of the general

public. The Board has the responsibility

for establishing the general policies of

the Institute. The Director is authorized,

subject to the policy direction of the

Board, to make grants under the Act to

museums.

IMS is an independent agency placed

in the National Foundation on the Arts

and the Humanities (National

Foundation). Pub. L 101–512, Nov. 5,

1990. The Act lists a number of

illustrative activities for which grants

may be made, including assisting

museums to improve their operations

and conservation.

The Need for the Amendment

The amendments to the regulations

are intended to make the programs more

responsive to the needs of applicants by

increasing the maximum amount of

conservation awards, by distributing

general operating awards more broadly

among high quality museums and by

assisting in program evaluation.

Proposed Amendments and Public

Comment

A notice of proposed rulemaking was

published March 6, 1995, 60 Federal

Register, 12186–12188. The preamble to

the notice of proposed rulemaking

contained an amendment-byamendment analysis explaining the

purpose of each amendment. The

discussion is not repeated here. Public

comment was invited on the proposed

amendments to determine the necessity

and appropriateness of the proposed

changes.

General Operating Support

The Institute received 260 comments

regarding § 1180.5 which would

establish eligibility criteria for the

General Operating Support program

making museums that have not received

two consecutive GOS awards eligible to

apply and making museums that have

received two consecutive GOS awards

ineligible to apply in the immediately

succeeding cycle. This criteria will be

effective beginning with the 1996

competition. Therefore, the deadline for

the fiscal year 2000 competition would

be the first deadline for which this

criteria would affect an institution’s

eligibility to compete for a General

Operating Support award.

Of the commenters, 222 favored the

proposed rule. Those who supported the

change expressed the belief that many

deserving, worthy museums compete for

GOS awards without success. These

commenters see broadening the

distribution to make awards to more

museums a highly desirable outcome of

such a change. Supporters said this

change would prevent museums from

becoming dependent on the award.

Some supporters believe, also, that the

current status allows the ‘‘rich to get

richer’’ and that receiving the award

creates a perpetuating cycle of future

awards. Some supporters said this

change would help small museums.

Others said it is a better way to broaden

distribution of GOS funds than further

reducing the amount of award.

Commenters opposing the change,

said that it was inconsistent with the

main role of GOS to reward and

recognize the highest quality museums.

The Institute agrees that the issue of

recognizing the high quality of museum

operations is important. However, the

Institute believes that many very high

quality museums currently compete and

do not receive awards. The Institute

believes the broader distribution

resulting from implementing the

proposed criteria will not negatively

affect recognition of high quality

museums. The Institute further believes

the change will encourage museums in

aspiring to higher levels of operation in

order to attain the award, as they will

perceive that chances for receiving the

award are greater.

Some commenters who opposed this

change believe it is detrimental to small

museums. The Institute believes the

procedures established for the General

Operating Support program ensure an

equitable representation of small

museums in the awards. The Institute

does not anticipate that small museums

will be negatively affected by this

change. The Institute believes the

change is equitable for museums of all

sizes and types and applies equally to

every institution.

Some commenters stated that this

change is premature in relation to the

other recent changes in GOS that reduce

the maximum amount of the award and

change to a two-year grant period. The

Institute has received positive reaction

to the previous changes in the grant

period and the amount of the award.

The Institute believes that this change

reinforces the efforts by the Institute to

broaden the distribution of these funds

as was intended with the previous

changes, and, therefore, is an

appropriate action.

Conservation Project Support

The institute received five comments

regarding §1180.20, which would
63964 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

increase the maximum amount of an

award generally made for the

Conservation Project Support program.

Four commenters supported the change

by indicating that this change is an

appropriate response to rising costs for

conservation activities. The Institute

agrees that the change is appropriate.

The commenter opposing the change

believes that research for species

survival projects will be neglected by

zoos, who may choose to use the larger

amount for changing in-house

environments. The Institute has no

evidence that zoos will make this

choice. Historically, the projects for

species survival have been more

numerous that any other type of project

submitted by zoos.

Other

No comments were received regarding

removing references to ‘‘Special Project’’

grants from the regulations or regarding

the requirement of final reports on

Museum Assessment Program grants or

Conservation Assessment Program

grants.

The Institute has considered all

comments and has again reviewed the

necessity and appropriateness of the

proposed changes. In light of this

consideration and review, following

consultation with the National Museum

Services Board, the Institute has

determined that the amendments to

regulations should be adopted as

proposed in the March 6, 1995 notice.

The final regulations set forth below

reflect this determination.

Executive Order 12866

These amendments have been

reviewed in accordance with Executive

Order 12866. They are classified as nonmajor because they do not meet the

criteria of major regulations established

in the Order.

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1180

Grant programs, Museums, National

Boards.

Dated: December 4, 1995.

Mamie Bittner,

Director of Public and Legislative Affairs.

The Institute of Museum Services

amends Part 1180 Subchapter E of

Chapter XI of Title 45 of the Code of

Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 1180—GRANTS REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 1180

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 20 USC 960–968.

2. Section § 1180.5 is amended by

adding a new paragraph (f):

§ 1180.5 Eligibility and burden of proof—

Who may apply.

* * * * *

(f) In a given year, a museum that has

not received two consecutive General

Operating Support awards in the

immediately preceding two-year cycles

is eligible to apply for General

Operating Support.

3. Section § 1180.20 is amended by

revising paragraph (f)(1) to read as

follows:

§ 1180.20 Guidelines and standards for

conservation projects

* * * * *

(f) Limits for Federal funding. (1) The

normal amount of a Conservation

Project Support grant will be established

through a notice published in the

Federal Register. Beginning in FY 1996,

the normal maximum amount is

$50,000. Unless otherwise provided by

law, if the Director determines that

exceptional circumstance warrant, the

Director, consistent with the policy

direction of the Board, may award a

conservation grant which obligates an

amount in Federal funds in excess of the

normal maximum award. IMS may

establish a maximum award level for

exceptional project grants for a

particular fiscal year through

information made available in

guidelines or other material distributed

to all applicants.

* * * * *

4. Section § 1180.17 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 1180.17 Reports

In its final reports a grantee shall

briefly detail how the expenditure of the

grant funds has satisfied the proposed

use of the funds as stated in its General

Operating Support application or has

accomplished the proposal as set forth

in its application and has served the

purpose of the Act as reflected in the

applicable evaluation criteria in

§ 1180.13.

5. Section § 1180.35 is amended by

revising its heading and paragraphs (a)

and (b) to read as follows:

§ 1180.35 Group applications.

(a) Eligible museums may apply as a

group for a project grant.

(b) If a group of museums applies for

a grant, the members of the group shall

either:

(1) Designate one member of the

group to apply for the grant; or

(2) Establish a separate, eligible legal

entity, consisting solely of the museum

group, to apply for the grant.

* * * * *

§ 1180.40 [Removed and reserved]

6. Section 1180.40 is removed and

reserved.

7. Section 1180.41 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 1180.41 The cost analysis; basis for

grant amount.

Before the Director sets the amount of

a grant, a cost analysis of the project is

made which involves an examination of:

(a) The cost data in the detailed

budget for the project;

(b) Specific elements of cost; and

(c) The necessity, reasonableness, and

allowability under applicable statutes

and regulations.

8. Section 1180.45 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 1180.45 Use of consultants.

(a) Subject to Federal statutes and

regulations, a grantee shall adhere to its

general policies and practices when it

hires, uses, and pays a consultant as

part of the staff.

* * * * *

9. Section 1180.48 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 1180.48 General conditions on

publications.

(a) Content of materials. Subject to

any specific requirements that apply to

its grant, a grantee may decide the

format and content of materials that it

publishes or arranges to have published.

(b) Required Statement. The grantee

shall ensure that any publication that

contains materials also contains the

following statement:

The contents of this (insert type of

publication, e.g., book, report, film) were

developed in whole or in part under a grant

from the Institute of Museum Services.

However, the contents do not necessarily

represent the policy of the Institute, and

endorsement by the Federal Government

should not be assumed.

10. Section 1180.49 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 1180.49 Copyright policy for grantees.

A grantee may copyright materials in

accordance with government-wide

policy applicable to copyright of

publications developed under Federal

grants.

11. Section 1180.50 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 1180.50 Definition of ‘‘materials.’’

As used in §§ 1180.48 through

1180.49, materials means a

copyrightable work developed in whole

or in part with funds from a grant from

the Institute.

12. Section 1180.58 is revised to read

as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 63965

1Hereinafter referred to as ‘‘heavy vehicles.’’

2Hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the ABS final rule.’’

§ 1180.58 Records related to performance.

(a) A grantee shall keep records

revealing progress and results under the

grant.

(b) The grantee shall use the records

under paragraph (a) of this section to:

(1) Determine progress in

accomplishing objectives; and

(2) Revise those objectives, if

necessary and authorized under the

grant.

13. Section 1180.59 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 1180.59 Applicability.

Subparts B and C (§§ 1180.30 through

1180.58) apply to General Operating

Support assistance, except as otherwise

provided in these regulations.

14. Section 1180.75 is amended by

revising paragraph (d) to read as

follows:

§ 1180.75 Funding and award procedures.

* * * * *

(d) A museum receiving assistance

under this subpart must submit a final

financial and narrative report that

evaluates the success of the assessment

and actions taken by the museum as a

result of the assessment. IMS may

request that the report be submitted up

to 12 months after the close of the grant

period.

* * * * *

[20 U.S.C. 961–68]

[FR Doc. 95–30016 Filed 12–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7036–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 92–29; Notice 7; Docket No.

93–06; Notice 4; Docket No. 93–07; Notice

4]

RIN 2127–AF96; 2127–AF97; 2127–AF98;

2127–AF99

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Stability and Control of

Medium and Heavy Vehicles During

Braking; and Stopping Distance

Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, petitions for

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: This document responds to

petitions for reconsideration of a final

rule that amended Standard No. 105,

Hydraulic Brake Systems, and Standard

No. 121, Air Brake Systems, to require

medium and heavy vehicles be

equipped with an antilock brake system

(ABS). This document also responds to

petitions for reconsideration of final

rules that established 60 mph stopping

distance requirements for hydraulicbraked heavy vehicles and reinstated

such requirements for air-braked heavy

vehicles.

DATES: Effective Dates: The amendments

to § 571.101 are effective January 12,

1996, the amendments to § 571.105 are

effective March 1, 1999, and

amendments to § 571.121 are effective

March 1, 1997.

Compliance dates: Compliance with

the amendments to 49 CFR 571.101 and

49 CFR 571.105 with respect to

hydraulic-braked vehicles will be

required on and after March 1, 1999.

Compliance with 49 CFR 571.101 and

49 CFR 571.121 with respect to airbraked tractors will be required on and

after March 1, 1997 and compliance

with 49 CFR 571.101 and 49 CFR

571.121 with respect to air-braked

trailers and single unit trucks and buses

will be required on and after March 1,

1998.

Petitions for Reconsideration: Any

petitions for reconsideration of this rule

must be received by NHTSA no later

than January 12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration

of this rule should refer to the above

referenced docket numbers and should

be submitted to: Administrator, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington,

D.C. 20590.

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.

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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

II. Petitions for Reconsideration

III. Definitions Related to Antilock Brake

Systems

A. Definition of Antilock Brake Systems

B. Directly Controlled Wheel

C. Independent Wheel Control

IV. Overall Brake Test Sequence

A. Performance Test Sequence

B. Brake Adjustment During Test Sequence

C. Final Brake Inspection in Test Sequence

V. Braking-In-A-Curve Test

A. General Considerations

B. Type of Brake Application

C. Number of Test Stops for Certification

D. Initial Brake Temperature

VI. Stopping Distance Performance

A. Stopping Distance Requirements

B. Test Surface Specification

C. Wheel Lockup Restrictions

D. Burnish Procedure

E. Definition of Nonsteerable Axle

VII. ABS Malfunction Indicator Lamps

A. In-cab Malfunction Lamp for Trailer

ABS

B. Trailer-mounted ABS Malfunction

Indicator

C. Activation Protocol for Malfunction

Indicators

D. Signal Storage

E. ABS Failed System Requirements

VIII. Power Source

A. Separate Powering for Trailer ABS

B. ABS Malfunction Signal Circuit and

Ground

C. Tractor Trailer ABS Interface Connector

IX. Applicability of Amendments and

Leadtime

A. Hydraulic-Braked Vehicles

B. Class 3 Vehicles

C. Four-Wheel Drive Vehicles

D. Trailers and Dollies

X. Miscellaneous

A. National Uniformity

B. Publish Complete Regulatory Texts and

Compliance Test Procedures

C. Costs

D. Corrections to Standard No. 101 and

Standard No. 105

I. Background

On March 10, 1995, NHTSA

published three final rules that

amended the agency’s brake standards

for medium and heavy vehicles.1 (60 FR

13216). One of those final rules requires

heavy vehicles to be equipped with an

antilock brake system (ABS) to improve

the directional stability and control of

these vehicles during braking.2 The

other two final rules announced

NHTSA’s decision to reinstate stopping

distance requirements for air-braked

heavy vehicles and to establish such

requirements for hydraulic-braked

heavy vehicles. (60 FR 13286, 13297)

As specified in the ABS final rule, in

addition to the ABS requirement, truck

tractors are required to comply with a

30-mph braking-in-a-curve test using a

full brake application on a low

coefficient of friction surface

representing a wet surface. All powered

heavy vehicles are also required to be

equipped with an in-cab lamp to

indicate ABS malfunctions. Truck

tractors and other towing vehicles are

required to be equipped with two

separate in-cab lamps: one indicating

malfunctions in the towing vehicle ABS

and the other indicating malfunctions in

the ABS on one or more towed trailers

and/or dollies. Trailers (including

dollies) produced during an initial

eight-year period are also required to be

equipped with an external malfunction