Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 32647

transiting the United States. Assuming

that proper risk management techniques

continue to be applied in Mexico and

that accident and exposure risk are

minimized by proper handling during

transport, the risk of exposure to hog

cholera from pork in transit from

Mexico through the United States is

minimal.

Shipments of pork and pork products

from Yucatan transiting the United

States will most likely be ocean

shipments to Miami with final

destinations in the Caribbean and South

America. Because no overland transit of

pork and pork products through the

United States is expected as a result of

this rulemaking, no increase in U.S.

trucking or other U.S.-based economic

activity is expected.

Both the United States and Mexico are

net pork importers. U.S. pork imports

represent approximately 2 to 3 percent

of production, and Mexican imports

represent 7 to 8 percent of production.

With favorable income growth expected

in Mexico due to trade liberalization,

meat imports, including pork products,

are expected to grow and limit Mexican

pork exports. However, facilitating

export opportunities for the Mexican

pork industry may provide incentives

for continued efforts to eradicate hog

cholera from infected Mexican States.

Under these circumstances, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has

determined that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12778

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State

and local laws and regulations that are

inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no

retroactive effect; and (3) does not

require administrative proceedings

before parties may file suit in court

challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule contains no new

information collection or recordkeeping

requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock,

Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry

and poultry products, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, 9 CFR part 94 is

amended as follows:

PART 94—RINDERPEST, FOOT-ANDMOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL

PLAGUE), VELOGENIC

VISCEROTROPIC NEWCASTLE

DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER,

HOG CHOLERA, AND BOVINE

SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY:

PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED

IMPORTATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 94

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 147a, 150ee, 161, 162,

and 450; 19 U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 111, 114a,

134a, 134b, 134c, 134f, 136, and 136a; 31

U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 4331 and 4332; 7 CFR

2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

§ 94.15 [Amended]

2. In § 94.15, paragraph (b), the

introductory text and paragraph (b)(2)

are amended by removing the words

‘‘Chihuahua or Sonora’’ and adding the

words ‘‘Chihuahua, Sonora, or Yucatan’’

in their place.

Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of

June 1996.

Lonnie J. King,

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 96–16159 Filed 6–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 436

[Docket No. EE–RM–95–501]

Federal Energy Management and

Planning Programs; Methodology and

Procedures for Life Cycle Cost

Analyses

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, DOE.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(DOE) is publishing a final rule to

implement its Federal Energy

Management Program to include

application of the life cycle costing

methodology when evaluating and

comparing the cost effectiveness of

water conservation measures in Federal

buildings. The amendments are directed

principally toward updating the life

cycle cost methodology and procedures

in subpart A in light of changes in law

requiring the use of life cycle costing

methodology when installing water

conservation measures.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is

effective July 25, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Theodore C. Collins, Federal Energy

Management Program, Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Mail

Station EE–92, U.S. Department of

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue,

SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–

8017.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

On August 25, 1995, DOE published

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to

amend some of the provisions in 10 CFR

part 436 which are applicable to

programs for the management of energy

consumption by Federal agencies (60 FR

44286). The amendments are directed

principally toward updating the life

cycle cost methodology and procedures

in subpart A in light of changes in law

requiring the use of life cycle costing

methodology when installing water

conservation measures.

Section 152 of the Energy Policy Act

of 1992 (Pub.L. 102–486) amended the

legislatively mandated policies with

regard to federal energy management

originally set forth in section 542 of the

National Energy Conservation Policy

Act (Act or NECPA). 42 U.S.C. 8252.

This amendment to section 542 expands

the purpose of the Federal Energy

Management Program to include the

conservation and the efficient use of

water, in addition to non-renewable

energy, by the Federal government.

Section 543 of the Act (42 U.S.C.

8253(a)) ‘‘Energy Management Goals’’

was also amended by section 152 of the

Energy Policy Act by adding an energy

management requirement for Federal

agencies that ‘‘Not later than January 1,

2005, each agency shall, to the

maximum extent practicable, install in

Federal buildings owned by the United

States all energy and water conservation

measures with payback periods of less

than 10 years, as determined by using

the methods and procedures developed

pursuant to section 544.’’ To implement

this statutory provision, it is necessary

to amend the life cycle cost regulations

as set forth in part 436 of the Code of

Federal Regulations, pursuant to section

544 of the Act, so that the life cycle cost

methodology and procedures can be

applied to the installation of water

conservation measures which are

implemented by Federal agencies to

meet the requirements of the Act.

In response to the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, DOE received no written

comments and there were no

commenters at a public hearing held on

October 12, 1995 in Washington, DC. In

view of the above, no changes have been
32648 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

made to the rule proposed on August

25, 1995.

II. Background of the Life Cycle Cost

Methodology

On January 23, 1980, DOE published

a final Life Cycle Cost rule (LCC) (45 FR

5620) which established the

methodology and procedures for

calculating and comparing the life cycle

cost of proposed investments to upgrade

the economic efficiency of Federal

buildings through energy conservation

or substitution of renewable energy

sources. The LCC rule was published

pursuant to section 381(a)(2) of the

Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as

amended, 42 U.S.C 6361(a)(2), section

10 of Executive Order 11912, and Title

V, part 3, of the National Energy

Conservation Policy Act (NECPA).

On November 30, 1990, DOE

published final amendments to 10 CFR

part 436 (55 FR 48217) to update the

guidelines applicable to Federal agency

in-house energy management programs.

That rulemaking was directed

principally toward updating the life

cycle cost methodology and procedures

in subpart A of 10 CFR part 436 in light

of provisions in the Federal Energy

Management Improvement Act of 1988

granting DOE more discretion in setting

discount and energy cost escalation

rates (Pub. L. 100–615).

The principle uses of the LCC rule are

determining the cost effectiveness of

proposed investments and assigning

priorities among proposed cost-effective

investments. The methodology and

procedures of the LCC rule are

amplified in a manual published for

DOE by the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST)

HB135, revised as necessary to reflect

amendments. It is referred to as the

‘‘Life Cycle Costing Manual for the

Federal Energy Management Program.’’

The methodology required by the LCC

rule involves a systematic analysis of all

significant costs associated with

proposed investments, the principal

purpose of which is to increase energy

efficiency on a life-cycle cost

effectiveness basis. This analysis relates

investment costs to future costs

associated with a proposed investment.

The LCC rule provides for standardized

assumptions for establishing and

comparing relevant cost. See 10 CFR

436.14.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Pub.

L. 102–486) amended NECPA by adding

water and the use of renewable energy

sources to the purpose of NECPA (42

U.S.C. 8252) and requiring the use of the

life cycle cost methodology when

installing in Federal buildings energy

and water conservation measures with

payback periods of less than 10 years

(42 U.S.C. 8253(b)). The amendments

published today relating to water

conservation measures are pursuant to

this authority.

III. General Discussion of Amendments

These amendments for the most part

insert the term ‘‘water’’ in the various

provisions of the rule to reflect the fact

that the conservation and efficient use

of water are now included within the

purpose and scope of the Federal Energy

Management Program. The methodology

and procedures for applying life cycle

cost analyses to water conservation

measures have been determined to be

generally consistent with the treatment

of energy. In those instances where the

nature of water conservation measures

require different treatment, a separate

provision is added. Overall, only minor

changes to the rule have been made to

comply with the mandates imposed by

the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

The basic requirements of the life

cycle cost methodology and procedures

are not changed by the amendments.

Their coverage is expanded so that they

apply to water conservation measures

which are the primary subject of the

amendments. To accommodate the

differences found when examining

factors which may be unique only to

water or energy, the Department of

Energy is adding new and revised

definitions in § 436.11 to allow for the

computation of factors unique to water

conservation measures for the purpose

of performing the life cycle costing

calculations. It is the intent of the

amendatory language to make clear that

the application of the life cycle cost

methodology and procedures to water

conservation measures are treated

parallel, where practicable, to energy

conservation measures when

determining life cycle cost effectiveness.

For example, the new definition of

‘‘building water system’’ parallels that

of ‘‘building energy system.’’ The

difference is the type of system which

is the subject of the analysis. In many

instances, the Department of Energy has

amended the rule with addition of the

terms ‘‘and water’’ or ‘‘or water,’’ as

determined appropriate, to meet the

requirement of the Act to apply life

cycle cost methodology and procedures

to water conservation measures.

There are a few minor changes which

serve to clarify and facilitate agency

implementation. Section 436.13

presumes that investment in a retrofit to

an existing Federal building is not life

cycle cost-effective if it is occupied

under a lease which includes the cost of

utilities in the rent and does not provide

a pass-through of energy or water

savings to the government. Language

was added to be explicit that this

presumption applies only to Federal

investment and should not necessarily

be used to determine the cost

effectiveness of building owners’

investments in their Federally-leased

buildings. Such investments are, in fact,

cost-effective and are encouraged. The

assumption in section 436.14 that

‘‘water prices will not escalate’’ is based

upon the fact that there are no

escalation rates established for water at

the national level. However, agencies

are permitted to use escalation rates

when they are available from suppliers.

Section 436.23 was modified to allow

agencies to include future price changes

when they estimate simple payback

time in order to be consistent with

national consensus standards developed

by the American Society of Testing and

Materials.

IV. Review Under Executive Order

12866

This rule was reviewed under the

provisions of this Executive Order

governing Regulatory Planning and

Review. DOE has determined that this

rule does not constitute a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ and is therefore not

subject to the provisions of section 6 of

the Executive Order requiring review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB).

V. Review Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This rule was reviewed under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,

Public Law 96–354 (5 U.S.C. 601–612).

DOE has determined that this rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities, therefore, no regulatory

flexibility analysis has been performed.

VI. Review Under the Paperwork

Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520) requires that

Federal agencies obtain approval from

the OMB before collecting information

from 10 or more persons. There are no

information collection requirements in

these amendments.

VII. Review Under the National

Environmental Policy Act

DOE has determined that

promulgation of this rule falls within

the interpreting/amending rulemaking

class, Category A5 of appendix A to

subpart D, ‘‘Categorical Exclusions

Applicable to General Agency Actions,’’

of the DOE National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. 10 CFR

part 1021. It is therefore categorically
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 32649

excluded from preparation of either an

Environmental Assessment or an

Environmental Impact Statement under

NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321, et. seq).

VIII. Review Under Executive Order

12612

Executive Order 12612, 52 FR 41685

(October 30, 1987), requires that

regulations, rules, legislation, and any

other policy actions be reviewed for any

substantial direct effects on States, on

the relationship between the National

government and the States, or in the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among various levels of

government. If there are sufficient

substantial direct effects, then the

Executive Order requires preparation of

a federalism assessment to be used in all

decisions involved in promulgating and

implementing a policy action. The rule

revises certain policy and procedural

requirements applicable only to Federal

energy management programs.

Therefore, the Department of Energy has

determined that the rule will not have

a substantial direct effect on the

institutional interests or traditional

functions of States.

IX. Review Under Executive Order

12988

With respect to the review of existing

regulations and the promulgation of

new regulations, section 3 (a) of

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996),

imposes on Executive agencies the

general duty to adhere to the following

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity; (2) write

regulations to minimize litigation; and

(3) provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct rather than a general

standard and promote simplificaiton

and burden reduction. With regard to

the review required by section 3(a),

section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988

specifically requires that Executive

agencies make every reasonable effort to

ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly

specifies the preemptive effect, if any;

(2) clearly specifies any effect on

existing Federal law or regulation; (3)

provides a clear legal standard for

affected conduct while promoting

simplification and burden reduction; (4)

specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5)

adequately defines key terms; and (6)

addresses other important issues

affecting clarity and general

draftsmanship under any guidelines

issued by the Attorney General. Section

3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires

agencies to review regulations in light of

applicable standards in section 3(a) and

section 3(b) to determine whether they

are met or it is unreasonable to meet one

or more of them. DOE has completed the

required review and determined that, to

the extent permitted by law, the final

regulations meet the relevant standards

of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 436

Energy Conservation, Federal

buildings and facilities.

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 4, 1996.

Christine A. Ervin,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 10 CFR part 436 is amended

as follows:

PART 436—FEDERAL ENERGY

MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING

PROGRAMS

1. The authority citation for part 436

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6361; 42 U.S.C. 8251–

8263; and 42 U.S.C. 8287–8287c.

2. Section 436.1 is revised as follows:

§ 436.1 Scope.

This part sets forth the rules for

Federal energy management and

planning programs to reduce Federal

energy consumption and to promote life

cycle cost effective investments in

building energy systems, building water

systems and energy and water

conservation measures for Federal

buildings.

3. Section 436.2 is amended by

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 436.2 General objectives.

* * * * *

(b) To promote the methodology and

procedures for conducting life cycle cost

analyses of proposed investments in

building energy systems, building water

systems and energy and water

conservation measures;

* * * * *

4. Section 436.10 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 436.10 Purpose.

This subpart establishes a

methodology and procedures for

estimating and comparing the life cycle

costs of Federal buildings, for

determining the life cycle cost

effectiveness of energy conservation

measures and water conservation

measures, and for rank ordering life

cycle cost effective measures in order to

design a new Federal building or to

retrofit an existing Federal building. It

also establishes the method by which

efficiency shall be considered when

entering into or renewing leases of

Federal building space.

5. Section 436.11 is amended by:

(a) Revising the definitions of

component price, Federal building, life

cycle cost, replacement cost, retrofit,

and salvage value, and (b) adding

definitions for building water system,

non-water operation and maintenance

costs, and water conservation measures

in alphabetical order to read as follows:

§ 436.11 Definitions.

* * * * *

Building water system means a water

conservation measure or any portion of

the structure of a building or any

mechanical, electrical, or other

functional system supporting the

building, the nature or selection of

which for a new building influences

significantly the cost of water

consumed.

Component price means any variable

sub-element of the total charge for a fuel

or energy or water, including but not

limited to such charges as ‘‘demand

charges,’’ ‘‘off-peak charges’’ and

‘‘seasonal charges.’’

* * * * *

Federal building means an energy or

water conservation measure or any

building, structure, or facility, or part

thereof, including the associated energy

and water consuming support systems,

which is constructed, renovated, leased,

or purchased in whole or in part for use

by the Federal government. This term

also means a collection of such

buildings, structures, or facilities and

the energy and water consuming

support systems for such collection.

* * * * *

Life cycle cost means the total cost of

owning, operating and maintaining a

building over its useful life (including

its fuel and water, energy, labor, and

replacement components), determined

on the basis of a systematic evaluation

and comparison of alternative building

systems, except that in the case of

leased buildings, the life cycle cost shall

be calculated over the effective

remaining term of the lease.

* * * * *

Non-water operation and

maintenance costs mean material and

labor cost for routine upkeep, repair and

operation exclusive of water cost.

* * * * *

Replacement costs mean future cost to

replace a building energy system or

building water system, an energy or

water conservation measure, or any

component thereof.

Retrofit means installation of a

building energy system or building

water system alternative in an existing

Federal building.
32650 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Salvage value means the value of any

building energy system or building

water system removed or replaced

during the study period, or recovered

through resale or remaining at the end

of the study period.

* * * * *

Water conservation measures mean

measures that are applied to an existing

Federal building that improve the

efficiency of water use, reduce the

amount of water for sewage disposal

and are life cycle cost effective and that

involve water conservation,

improvements in operation and

maintenance efficiencies, or retrofit

activities.

6. Section 436.13 is amended by

revising paragraph (a), the introductory

text of paragraph (b) and paragraph

(b)(2) to read as follows:

§ 436.13 Presuming cost-effectiveness

results.

(a) If the investment and other costs

for an energy or water conservation

measure considered for retrofit to an

existing Federal building or a building

energy system or building water system

considered for incorporation into a new

building design are insignificant, a

Federal agency may presume that such

a system is life cycle cost-effective

without further analysis.

(b) A Federal agency may presume

that an investment in an energy or water

conservation measure retrofit to an

existing Federal building is not life

cycle cost-effective for Federal

investment if the Federal building is—

* * * * *

(2) Occupied under a lease which

includes the cost of utilities in the rent

and does not provide a pass-through of

energy or water savings to the

government; or

* * * * *

8. Section 436.14, is amended by

revising paragraphs (b)(1), (c),

introductory text to paragraph (d)(2), (e)

and (g) as follows:

§ 436.14 Methodological assumptions.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) If the Federal agency is using

component prices under § 436.14(c),

that agency may use corresponding

component escalation rates provided by

the energy or water supplier.

* * * * *

(c) Each Federal agency shall assume

that the price of energy or water in the

base year is the actual price charged for

energy or water delivered to the Federal

building and may use actual component

prices as provided by the energy or

water supplier.

(d) * * *

(2) For determining the life cycle costs

or net savings of mutually exclusive

alternatives for a given building energy

system or building water system (e.g.,

alternative designs for a particular

system or size of a new or retrofit

building energy system or building

water system), a uniform study period

for all alternatives shall be assumed

which is equal to—

* * * * *

(e) Each Federal agency shall assume

that the expected life of any building

energy system or building water system

is the period of service without major

renewal or overhaul, as estimated by a

qualified engineer or architect, as

appropriate, or any other reliable source

except that the period of service of a

building energy or water system shall

not be deemed to exceed the expected

life of the owned building, or the

effective remaining term of the leased

building (taking into account renewal

options likely to be exercised).

* * * * *

(g) Each Federal agency may assume

that energy or water costs and non-fuel

or non-water operation and

maintenance costs begin to accrue at the

beginning of the base year or when

actually projected to occur.

* * * * *

8. Section 436.16 is amended by

revising the section heading,

redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as

paragraphs (c) and (d), and by adding a

new paragraph (b) as follows:

§ 436.16 Establishing non-fuel and nonwater cost categories.

* * * * *

(b) The relevant non-water cost

categories are—

(1) Investment costs;

(2) Non-water operation and

maintenance cost;

(3) Replacement cost; and

(4) Salvage value.

* * * * *

9. Section 436.17 is amended by

revising the section heading and by

adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as

follows:

§ 436.17 Establishing energy or water cost

data.

* * * * *

(c) Each Federal agency shall establish

water costs in the base year by

multiplying the total units of water used

in the base year by the price per unit of

water in the base year as determined in

accordance with § 436.14(c).

(d) When water costs begin to accrue

in the base year, the present value of

water costs over the study period is the

product of water costs in the base year

as established under § 436.17(a), or as

calculated by computer software

provided or approved by DOE and used

with the official discount rate and

assumptions under § 436.14. When

water costs begin to accrue at a later

time, subtract the present value of water

costs over the delay, calculated using

the uniform present worth factor for the

period of delay, from the present value

of water costs over the study period or,

if using computer software, indicate a

delayed beneficial occupancy date.

10. Section 436.18 is amended by

revising the introductory text to

paragraph (c), paragraph (d), the first

sentence of paragraph (e) and paragraph

(f) to read as follows:

§ 436.18 Measuring cost-effectiveness.

* * * * *

(c) Replacement of a building energy

or water system with an energy or water

conservation measure by retrofit to an

existing Federal building or by

substitution in the design for a new

Federal building shall be deemed costeffective if—

* * * * *

(d) As a rough measure, each Federal

agency may determine estimated simple

payback time under § 436.23, which

indicates whether a retrofit is likely to

be cost effective under one of the four

calculation methods referenced in

§ 436.18(c). An energy or water

conservation measure alternative is

likely to be cost-effective if estimated

payback time is significantly less than

the useful life of that system, and of the

Federal building in which it is to be

installed.

(e) Mutually exclusive alternatives for

a given building energy or water system,

considered in determining such matters

as the optimal size of a solar energy

system, the optimal thickness of

insulation, or the best choice of doubleglazing or triple-glazing for windows,

shall be compared and evaluated on the

basis of life cycle costs or net savings

over equivalent study periods. * * *

(f) When available appropriations will

not permit all cost-effective energy or

water conservation measures to be

undertaken, they shall be ranked in

descending order of their savings-toinvestment ratios, or their adjusted

internal rate of return, to establish

priority. If available appropriations

cannot be fully exhausted for a fiscal

year by taking all budgeted energy or

water conservation measures according

to their rank, the set of energy or water

conservation measures that will

maximize net savings for available

appropriations should be selected.

* * * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 25, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 32651

11. Section 436.19 is amended by

revising paragraph (d) to read as

follows:

§ 436.19 Life cycle costs.

* * * * *

(d) Energy and/or water costs.

12. Section 436.21 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 436.21 Savings-to-investment ratio.

The savings-to-investment ratio is the

ratio of the present value savings to the

present value costs of an energy or water

conservation measure. The numerator of

the ratio is the present value of net

savings in energy or water and non-fuel

or non-water operation and

maintenance costs attributable to the

proposed energy or water conservation

measure. The denominator of the ratio

is the present value of the net increase

in investment and replacement costs

less salvage value attributable to the

proposed energy or water conservation

measure.

13. Section 436.22 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 436.22 Adjusted internal rate of return.

The adjusted internal rate of return is

the overall rate of return on an energy

or water conservation measure. It is

calculated by subtracting 1 from the nth

root of the ratio of the terminal value of

savings to the present value of costs,

where n is the number of years in the

study period. The numerator of the ratio

is calculated by using the discount rate

to compound forward to the end of the

study period the yearly net savings in

energy or water and non-fuel or nonwater operation and maintenance costs

attributable to the proposed energy or

water conservation measure. The

denominator of the ratio is the present

value of the net increase in investment

and replacement costs less salvage value

attributable to the proposed energy or

water conservation measure.

14. Section 436.23 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 436.23 Estimated simple payback time.

The estimated simple payback time is

the number of years required for the

cumulative value of energy or water cost

savings less future non-fuel or nonwater costs to equal the investment

costs of the building energy or water

system, without consideration of

discount rates.

15. Section 436.24 is amended by

revising the last sentence in the section

as follows:

§ 436.24 Uncertainty analyses.

* * * If additional analysis casts

substantial doubt on the life cycle cost

analysis results, a Federal agency

should consider obtaining more reliable

data or eliminating the building energy

or water system alternative.

[FR Doc. 96–16120 Filed 6–24–96;8:45am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 95–AGL–20]

Establishment of Class E Airspace;

Bigfork, MN; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: This action corrects an error

in the airspace description of the

Bigfork, MN, Class E airspace published

in a final rule on May 2, 1996 (61 FR

19541), Airspace Docket Number 95–

AGL–20.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, August 15,

1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John A. Clayborn, Air Traffic Division,

Operations Branch, AGL–530, Federal

Aviation Administration, 2300 East

Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois

60018, telephone (847) 294–7568.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

Federal Register Document 96–10972,

Airspace Docket 95–AGL–20, published

on May 2, 1996 (61 FR 19541),

established the Class E airspace at

Bigfork, MN. Errors were discovered in

the legal description. This action

corrects the spelling of Bigfork and adds

the airport name, city and state in the

title of the legal description.

Correction to Final Rule

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me, the airspace

legal description, as published in the

Federal Register on May 2, 1996 (61 FR

19541), (Federal Register Document 96–

10972; page 19542, column 1), is

corrected in the legal description to the

incorporation by reference in 14 CFR

71.1 as follows:

§ 71.1 [Corrected]

* * * * *

AGL MN E5 Bigfork, MN [Corrected]

Bigfork Municipal Airport, MN

(Lat. 47°46′45′′N, long, 93°39′01′′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 June 3,

1996.

Maureen Woods,

Manager, Air Traffic Division.

[FR Doc. 96–16111 Filed 6–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 558

New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal

Feeds; Ivermectin and Lincomycin

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is amending the

animal drug regulations to reflect

approval of a new animal drug

application (NADA) filed by Merck

Research Laboratories, Division of

Merck & Co., Inc. The NADA provides

for use of single ingredient ivermectin

and lincomycin Type A medicated

articles to make combination drug Type

B and C medicated swine feeds used for

treatment and control of certain

helminth, lice, and mite infections,

increased rate of weight gain, treatment

and control of swine dysentery, and

reduction of severity of swine

mycoplasma pneumonia in growingfinishing swine.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 25, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melanie R. Berson, Center for Veterinary

Medicine (HFV–135), Food and Drug

Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,

Rockville, MD 20855, 301–594–1643.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Merck

Research Laboratories, Division of

Merck & Co., Inc., P.O. Box 2000,

Rahway, NJ 07065, is sponsor of NADA

141–054, which provides for the use of

Ivomec (ivermectin 0.6 percent) Type

A medicated article and Lincomix

(lincomycin 20 and 50 grams (g)/pound)

Type A medicated articles to make

ivermectin/ lincomycin Type B and C

medicated swine feeds. The Type C

medicated swine feeds containing 1.8 g

ivermectin/ton with 20, 40, 100, or 200

g lincomycin/ton are fed to growingfinishing swine for treatment and

control of gastrointestinal roundworms,

kidney worms, lungworms, lice, mites,

swine dysentery; reduction of severity

of mycoplasmal pneumonia; and to

increase rate of weight gain. The NADA

is approved as of June 25, 1996, and the

regulations are amended in 21 CFR

558.300 and 558.325 to reflect the