18072 Federal Register / Vol. 62. No. 71 / Monday. April 14, 1997 / Proposed Rules
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, 256r-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
2 Section 110(k)(l)(B) provides that SIP revisions
that have not been determined by EPA to be
incomplete by 6 months after receipt shall on tha
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 EP '
is required to act on the submission.
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]
RIN2050-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
inkjet 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.
SUPFtEMENTARYWFORMATION: 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
InkJet cartridges at this time.
I. Authority
42 U.S.C. 6912(a) and 6962; E.G.
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 InkJet
cartridges in the Non-Paper Office
Products category. InkJet 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 InkJet 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.
in. 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 period1, EPA met with one of
the commenters (a major manufacturer
of ink jet equipment and InkJet - .
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 die 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 InkJet
cartridge designation and issues raised
by the InkJet equipment manufacturers.
A summary of Information obtained
during these conversations has also
been added to RCRA Docket F-96-CP2P-
FFFFF.
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 tills
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 post-
consumer materials. Thus, when
considering whether to designate an
item, EPA examines the likely impact of
die designation on the volume of solid
waste generated and discarded .
annually.
In the background document for the
proposed CPG n, "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 InkJet cartridges are
discarded annually. EPA was not able to
quantify the amount of InkJet cartridges
discarded by Federal agencies, however.
Commenters noted that InkJet
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 terephtiialate
(PET), high density polyethylene
(HOPE), low density polyethylene
• (LDPE); polyvinyl chloride (PVC),
polypropylene (PP), and polystyrene
(PS). Items designated in die original
CPG contain one or more of diese
plastics, thus helping to create markets
for these larger constituents of the
plastics waste stream. By contrast,
commenters stated that InkJet cartridges
contain a specialty plastic and currently
cannot be made with recovered
materials. Therefore, designating InkJet
cartridges would not create end-use
markets for plastics recovered from
municipal solid waste and would not
have a significant impact oh die solid
waste stream.
In addition, it has been brought to
EPA's attention that InkJet cartridge
refill kits generate a larger volume of
solid waste than discarded ink jet
cartridges, including the packaging.'The
kits include plastic containers for die
replacement ink, tools for puncturing
die 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 InkJet
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 InkJet 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 InkJet 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 InkJet 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 InkJet
cartridges can and are being refilled and
can perform adequately, even if they are
not performing Identically to a new
replacement InkJet 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
inkjet 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'agencles 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 InkJet cartridges.
Therefore, EPA seeks additional
information about the availability of
refilled InkJet 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, InkJet 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
InkJet 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 InkJet
cartridges in the CPG. Moreover,
designation of InkJet 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 inkjet cartridges. At
this time, inkjet cartridge refill kits are
generating more waste than discarded
cartridges. Based on these factors, EPA
has tentatively concluded that It is
premature to designate inkjet 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 65SO-50-P •
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47CFR Parti
[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,
-------
------- |