issue-1996-05-23•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-05-23
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-05-23
issue-1996-05-23Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-05-23Proposed Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 96-13041 Security Zone; San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 101 (Thursday, May 23, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25838-25839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13041]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[COTP San Diego 96-002]
RIN 2115-AA97
Security Zone; San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: At the request of the Secret Service, the Coast Guard proposes
to establish a temporary security zone within San Diego Bay adjacent to
the San Diego Convention Center. The security zone is needed to ensure
the security of those attending the Republican National Convention by
securing the nearby Marriott Marina and any adjacent vessels,
waterfront facilities, or waters. Authorized vessels will be permitted
to enter or remain within the security zone.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 8, 1996. Two public
meetings will be held: one meeting on June 1, 1996 at 10 a.m. and the
second meeting on July 2, 1996 at 7 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to LTJG John V. Reinert, Marine
Safety Office San Diego, 2716 N. Harbor Dr., San Diego, CA 92101.
Comments may also be delivered between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments will be available for
inspection and copying at this address between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The June 1, 1996 public meeting will be held at the San Diego
Marriott and Marina, 385 West Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA. The July 2,
1996 public meeting will be held at Building ``I'', Coast Guard
Activities San Diego, 2710 North Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
LTJG John V. Reinert, Marine Safety Office, 2716 N. Harbor Dr., San
Diego, CA 92101 (619) 683-6486.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rule making
by submitting written views, data or arguments. Persons submitting
comments should include their names and addresses, identify this notice
(COTP San Diego 96-002) and the specific section of the proposal to
which their comments apply. Reasons should be given for each comment.
The regulations may be changed in view of the comments received. All
comments received before the expiration of the comment period will be
considered before final action is taken. The receipt of comments will
be acknowledged if a stamped self-addressed postcard or envelope is
enclosed.
The Captain of the Port San Diego plans to hold two public meetings
in San Diego, CA on this proposed rule. The first meeting will be June
1, 1996 at 10 a.m. at the San Diego Marriott and Marina. The second
meeting will be held at 7 p.m. at Building ``I'' Coast Guard Activities
San Diego.
Discussion of Proposed Regulations
The Republican National Convention will be held at the San Diego
Convention Center in San Diego, CA from August 11 through 15, 1996. The
Secret Service requested that the Coast Guard establish the proposed
security zone to ensure the security of those attending the Republican
National Convention by securing the nearby Marriott Marina and any
adjacent vessels, waterfront facilities, or waters. Expected attendees
at the Convention may include former U.S. presidents and their spouses,
high ranking U.S. government officials and the Republican presidential
and vice-presidential nominees.
The security zone will be in effect from 8 a.m. PDT on August 11,
1996 until 11 p.m PDT on August 15, 1996. The security zone will
encompass the entrance to the Marriott Marina, and includes the
following water and land area: starting at a point along the waterfront
between Marriott Marina finger piers ``F'' and ``G'' at a point
32 deg.42'26''N, 117 deg.09'56''W, extending southwesterly to the south
end of North Embarcadero Park at a point 32 deg.42'20''N,
117 deg.10'01''W, continuing 500 feet southwesterly toward channel buoy
``23'' at a point 32 deg.42'16''N, 117 deg.10'07''W, then southeasterly
following the South Embarcadero Park shoreline so a point where it
intersects with the easterly side of navigable channel at
32 deg.42'13''N, 117 deg.10'02''W, proceeding along the channel edge
100 feet past the southernmost point of South Embarcadero Park to a
point 32 deg.42'09''N, 117 deg.09'50'', then northeasterly until it
intersects with the shoreline at a point 32 deg.42'16''N,
117 deg.09'42''W, then along shoreline to the point of beginning.
Pursuant to the Coast Guard's authority in 33 U.S.C. 1223; 50 USC
191, and the general regulations governing security zones in 33 CFR
165.33 and 33 CFR 6.04, no vessel will be allowed to enter or remain in
this zone unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port
(COTP). The COTP may grant permission for a vessel to enter or remain
within the security zone if the vessel owner or operator first consents
to a search of the vessel by the U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Coast Guard,
or other authorities for the purpose of finding explosives, weapons, or
other articles which may pose a threat to the Marriott Marina or any
adjacent vessels, waterfront facilities, or waters. The owner or
operator of a vessel entering the security zone must also provide the
COTP with a list of persons on board and destination slip number.
Vessels whose owners or operators do not consent to a search of their
vessels or who refuse to provide any information requested by the COTP
will not be granted permission to enter or remain within the security
zone. While the security zone is in effect, no person will be granted
permission by the COTP to remain on any vessel within the security zone
between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m.
The COTP may grant permission for a vessel in the mooring at the
Marriott Marina to remain within the security zone if the owners or
operators consent to a search of the vessel. If a vessel leaves its
mooring and exits the security zone, its reentry will be conditioned on
consent to be searched. Additionally, the owner or operator of the
vessel will be required to provide the COTP with a list of persons on
board the vessel when transiting the security zone and an estimated
time of return to moorings within the security zone.
Under the authority granted the COTP in 33 CFR 6.04-8 to control
the movement of any vessel within the territorial waters of the United
States under his jurisdiction, vessels within the security zone will
not be allowed to move on August 15, 1996 from 2 p.m. to 11 p.m. The
COTP will not grant permission for any vessel to enter the security
zone during that time period. Additionally, during this time period,
[[Page 25839]]
under the authority in 33 CFR 6.04-7, the COTP will not allow any
person to remain on vessels moored at Marriott Marina finger piers G,
H, I, and J.
The COTP, working with the Secret Service and other law enforcement
authorities during this operation, may impose other restrictions within
the security zone if circumstances dictate. Restrictions imposed by the
COTP will be tailored to impose the least impact on maritime interests
while ensuring the security of the Marriott Marina or any adjacent
vessels, waterfront facilities, or waters.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposal is not a significant regulatory action under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It
has been exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget
under that order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies
and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;
February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this
proposal to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under
paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is
unnecessary.
Small Entities
Under 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., known as the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, the Coast Guard must consider whether this proposal will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
``Small Entities'' include independently owned and operated small
businesses that are not dominant in their field and that otherwise
qualify as ``small business concerns'' under section 3 of the small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632). The Captain of the Port may grant
permission for vessels to enter or remain in the security zone, subject
to the conditions discussed previously. Costs incurred by vessel owners
and commercial entities within the security zone are expected to be
minimal. Any such costs are greatly outweighed by the need to ensure
the security of those attending the Republican National Convention by
securing the nearby Marriott Marina and any adjacent vessels,
waterfront facilities, or waters. Since the impact of this proposal is
expected to be minimal, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b), that this proposal, if adopted, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Collection of Information
This proposal contains no collection of information requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Federalism Assessment
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and this action does not
raise sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of
a Federalism Assessment.
Environmental Assessment
This proposed rule has been thoroughly reviewed by the Coast Guard
and determined to be categorically excluded from further environmental
documentation in accordance with section 2.B.2.c of Commandant
Instruction M16475. 1B, as revised in 59 FR 38654, July 29, 1994. A
Categorical Exclusion Determination and Environmental Analysis
Checklist are included in the docket.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
Proposed Regulations
In consideration of the foregoing, 33 CFR part 165 is proposed to
be amended as follows:
PART 165--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C.1231; 50 U.S.C. 191: 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-
6 and 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.
2. A new section 165.T11-030 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T11-030 Security Zone; San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA.
(a) Location. The following area is a security zone: the water and
land area adjacent to the San Diego Convention Center, San Diego, CA,
described as follows:
Beginning at 32 deg.42'26''N, 117 deg.09'56''W; then southwest
to 32 deg.42'20''N, 117 deg.10'01''W; then southwest to
32 deg.42'16''N, 117 deg.10'07''W; then southeast to the outer
channel line to 32 deg.42'13''N, 117 deg.10'02''W; then continuing
along the outer channel line to 32 deg.42'09''N, 117 deg.09'50''W;
then northwest to point of land at 32 deg.42'16''N,
117 deg.09'42''W; then along shoreline to the point of beginning.
(Datum: NAD 83)
(b) Effective dates. This section is in effect from 8 a.m. PDT on
August 11, 1996 until 11 p.m. PDT on August 15, 1996.
(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec. 165.33, entry into this zone is prohibited except as authorized by
the Captain of the Port.
(2) The COTP may grant permission for a vessel to enter or remain
within the security zone if the owners or operators consent to a search
of their vessel for the purpose of locating explosives, weapons, or
other articles or things which could pose a threat to the security of
the Marriott Marina, adjacent vessels, waterfront facilities, or
waters.
(3) All persons and vessels within the security zone shall comply
with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the
designated on scene patrol personnel. Upon being hailed via siren,
radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall
follow the instructions of the patrol personnel.
(4) The Captain of the Port will notify the public of the status of
this security zone by Marine Safety Radio Broadcast on VHF Marine Band
Radio, Channel 22 (157.1 MHz).
Dated: April 26, 1996.
J.A. Watson,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Diego.
[FR Doc. 96-13041 Filed 5-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13030 Air Traffic Control Radar Beacon System and Mode S Transponder Requirements in the National Airspace System
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 101 (Thursday, May 23, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26036-26040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13030]
[[Page 26035]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Parts 121 and 135
Air Traffic Control Radar Beacon System and Mode S Transponder
Requirements in the National Airspace System; Proposed Rules
Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 101/ Thursday, May 23, 1996/ Proposed
Rules
[[Page 26036]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 121 and 135
[Docket No. 28586; Notice No. 96-5]
RIN 2120-AE81
Air Traffic Control Radar Beacon System and Mode S Transponder
Requirements in the National Airspace System
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to rescind the Mode S transponder
requirement for all aircraft operations under part 135 and certain
aircraft operations under part 121 of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(14 CFR parts 121 and 135). For part 121 operators, this amendment
would affect only those aircraft not required to have Traffic Alert and
Collision Avoidance System II (TCAS II). The initial mandate for Mode S
equipage was based on the assumption that Mode S would provide the sole
method for air traffic control data link. The FAA's revised strategy of
multiple air-ground data links managed through an Aeronautical
Telecommunications net work removes this requirement. Further,
operational experience with the Mode S ground sensors has shown that
most surveillance enhancements can be achieved by the Mode S ground
sensors with the present mixed population of airborne transponders. In
addition, the use of Mode S transponders for aircraft, other than those
required to have TCAS II, does not offer, nor is it expected to offer,
any significant safety advantage in the current or future airspace
environment. Therefore, requiring all aircraft at this time to have
Mode S transponders when those aircraft are not required to have TCAS
II is not essential for a safe and efficient National Airspace System.
In the current airspace operational environment, the public interest
does not require that all transponders newly installed in certain
aircraft operated under part 121 and all aircraft operated under part
135 after January 1, 1992, be Mode S transponders.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 22, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this NPRM should be mailed, in triplicate to:
Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 28537, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Comments may also be sent
electronically to the Rules Docket by using the following Internet
address: [email protected]. Comments must be marked Docket No.
28586. Comments may be examined in the Rules Docket in Room 915G on
weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m., except on Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Daniel V. Meier Jr., Air Carrier
Operations Branch (AFS-220), Air Transportation Division, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone (202) 267-3749.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-
9677. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future FAA
NPRM's should request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes application
procedures.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem
and suitable communications software from the FAA regulations section
of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703-321-
3339) or the Federal Register's electronic bulletin board service
(telephone 202-512-1661). Internet users may reach the FAA's web page
at http://www.faa.gov or the Federal Register's webpage at http://
www.access.gpo.gov/su__docs for access to recently published rulemaking
documents.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of this NRM by submitting a request to
the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-
9677. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future
NPRM's should request from the above office a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Distribution System, which describes the
application procedure.
History
In 1982, the FAA announced a comprehensive plan to modernize and
improve air traffic control and airway facilities. One part of the
comprehensive plan included introducing the Mode S system. In an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking, the FAA stated that improved
surveillance reliability and accuracy would be a central objective of
the Mode S system (48 FR 48364, October 18, 1983). Mode S transponders
were considered an integral link in the system, furnishing accurate,
reliable, and positive air traffic control information on aircraft
identity, position, and altitude. The plan envisioned that all
groundbased secondary radars would be replaced by Mode S stations, and
that Mode S would provide the exclusive medium for an air/ground data
link. At that time, the first 137 Mode S ground sensors were expected
to be on-line by 1991. Therefore, the Mode S transponder requirement
was promulgated with a final rule published February 3, 1987 (Amendment
Nos. 121-190 and 135-22; 52 FR 3380). This final rule provided that any
transponder newly installed in aircraft used for operations under parts
121 and 135 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR 121 and
135), before January 1, 1992, could be a Mode A transponder provided
the transponder was manufactured prior to January 1, 1990; only Mode S
transponders could be newly installed in these aircraft after January
1, 1992.
Mode A and Mode S Transponders
The two kinds of aircraft equipment addressed by this rulemaking
are the Mode A and the Mode S transponders. They are the airborne
portion of the secondary radar system, which is not a true radar system
but rather an interrogate/respond system used to establish aircraft
position and identity.
The Mode A transponder consists of a radio transceiver that
responds to a coded train of pulses from ground sensors (known as Air
Traffic Control Radar Beacon Interrogators (ATCBI)). The Mode A
transponder response encodes one of 4,096 discrete codes (set by the
pilot) in response to a Mode A interrogation from the ground sensor.
The ground sensor receives the reply message, and processors extract
the aircraft's position and identity for display on the controller's
radar scope. An enhanced transponder is capable of responding to Mode C
interrogations from the ground station by reporting the aircraft's
altitude derived from a suitable encoding altimeter.
[[Page 26037]]
The Mode S transponder is an advanced version of the Mode A
transponder which responds to conventional Mode A and Mode C
interrogations, but it is also capable of responding to a Mode S
interrogation with a unique code based on the aircraft's tail number.
When used in conjunction with Mode S ground sensors, a system of nearly
interference-free radar transmission and reception will exist. This
system provides for improved target information to be display on the
controller's radar screen and enables the various air traffic control
computers (ATC) to detect conflict and control aircraft flow. In
addition, the Mode S ground station recognizes a conventional Mode A
transponder and reverts to conventional ATCBI operation for that
aircraft.
The Mode S System
The Mode S system was designed to rectify limitations in the
current radar system. The limitations include synchronous garble, loss
of target and altitude integrity, and restrictions on traffic
management caused by the limited number of discrete beacon codes. Of
the two components in the Mode S system (i.e., the ground sensor and
the transponder), the ground sensor provides most of the capability to
ameliorate these limitations.
Synchronous garble occurs when the ground sensor interrogating two
aircraft near one another cannot distinguish between their respective
replies. In this situation, the data cannot be reconstructed; the ATC
computer will either not display information or display erroneous
information on the air traffic controller radar scope. When this
condition can occur any time aircraft are in proximity, it is most
likely to hamper air traffic services in areas of high density aircraft
activity such as Classes B and C airspace areas. Improved processing
capabilities found in the latest monopulse secondary radars are able to
resolve many garble situations without Mode S transponder equipage by
the aircraft. Operational experience with the currently deployed Mode S
systems indicates that the garble resolution provided with the current
transponder population is sufficient to provide assured separation
using today's separation standards.
Target and altitude integrity expresses the ability of the radar
system to distinguish between transmissions received from two different
aircraft. The ATCBI secondary radar system transmits interrogation
signals, and all transponder-equipped aircraft receiving the signal
reply with a distinct code and, if so equipped, report the aircraft's
altitude. As described earlier, the ability of the current system to
distinguish between two signals is affected by the proximity of the
aircraft to each other. Terrain, signal strength of the aircraft
transponder equipment, and environmental factors can also derogate the
ability of the ground sensor to determine the position and altitude of
an aircraft.
Azimuth accuracy is improved with the Mode S system. To illustrate,
when two aircraft are equal distances from a sensor in the existing
system, they must be at least .23 deg. of azimuth apart before both
targets are displayed. With the Mode S system, those same aircraft need
only be apart by .06 deg. of azimuth to be displayed. A 1976 FAA-
sponsored study postulated that a homogeneous Mode S environment (Mode
S ground sensors and transponders) would increase integrity to more
than 99 percent. Recent FAA tests and operational experience with the
Mode S ground sensors have verified these figures.
If the number of aircraft operating in the National Airspace System
continues to increase, the number of codes needed may eventually exceed
the current limit of 4,096 discrete codes. Controllers assign these
discrete codes, used to track aircraft position and altitude, to
aircraft receiving air traffic services. The unique code assigned by
the Mode S reduces the controller's workload and computer processing
burden, allowing positive identification of an aircraft as it passes
from one air traffic facility to another, and as data link messages are
associated with surveillance targets. However, without a nationwide
network of Mode S ground sensors in place and enhanced ATC computers
with complementary software, these productivity benefits cannot be
fully achieved.
Although the Mode S system improves accuracy in the surveillance of
aircraft position and reduces interference in identify reports
transmitted to air traffic controllers, which allows for clear
surveillance of aircraft that are minimally separated, studies with the
Precision Runway Monitor show that a multitude of procedural, pilot
training, and other issues must be addressed before a relaxation in
aircraft separation standards may be approved. Therefore the capacity
benefits envisioned initially from Mode S are not primarily dependent
on improved surveillance capability.
In addition to surveillance, the initial strategy for Mode S
deployment includes a data-link capability. All secondary radar ground
stations were to be converted to Mode S, which was to be the sole data
link used for critical ATC messages. The FAA has adopted a new data
link strategy with two principle thrusts: (1) a second FAA data link
will be deployed as part of the next-generation air-ground VHF radios;
and (2) private data link services will be considered if they meet FAA
performance requirements. The message itself will be routed through an
Aeronautical Telecommunications Network (ATN), which will automatically
select the best air-ground media based on the nature of the message.
This strategy provides a much more flexible and market-driven approach,
which allows the FAA to work with the aviation community to use the
best available evolving technology.
The new data link strategy means that nationwide Mode S ground
station deployment is no longer required to establish the air-ground
link. Further, mandatory Mode S transponder equipage by aircraft is not
required to achieve widespread data link equipage in aircraft. The
number of Mode S ground stations will now be determined by surveillance
requirements and the marginal benefit of the increased air-ground data
link capability.
Mode S capability is an integral part of the Traffic Alert and
Collision Avoidance System II (TCAS II) required by Sec. 121.356 14 CFR
for certain aircraft operating under part 121. This regulation requires
such aircraft having a passenger seating configuration of more than 30
seats to be equipped with an approved TCAS II and appropriate Mode S
transponder by December 30, 1993. Used with TCAS II, Mode S provides
air-to-air data exchange between TCAS-equipped aircraft making
coordinated, complementary resolution advisories (recommended escape
maneuvers) possible. A TCAS II system is rendered ineffective unless a
Mode S transponder is installed with the TCAS II component.
Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System I (TCAS I) does not
require data from Mode S transponders to function. This system is
intended for use by aircraft with passenger seating configuration
between 10 and 30 seats that are operated under parts 121 and 135. TCAS
I provides proximity warning only to assist a pilot in the visual
acquisition of intruder aircraft.
The FAA has determined that the requirement to install Mode S
transponders after January 1, 1992, in aircraft not required to be
equipped with TCAS II exceeds the requirements of the present and
immediate future for a safe and efficient National Airspace System.
Studies and analysis are being
[[Page 26038]]
conducted on advanced methods of aircraft separation to support the
FAA's goal of ``free flight.'' Free flight is an operational vision
that will allow aircraft to cooperatively plan and execute their
optimal flight paths with minimal interference from ground-based
controllers. The overall infrastructure improvements to the airspace
system (including surveillance) required to achieve operational
benefits are being defined, and public comment will be sought on the
benefits, procedures, and any new avionics requirements before they are
implemented. The FAA further invites comment on whether future equipage
of Mode S transponders should be mandatory for certain areas of
operation.
Except for aircraft equipped with TCAS II, the presence of Mode S
transponder capability on part 135 aircraft would not enhance the
safety of flight in today's airspace environment. If the demand for air
traffic services continues to increase, A mode S transponder may be
necessary for aircraft operating under parts 121 and 135 to increase
efficiency in some areas of the national airspace system.
The Proposed Rule
The FAA proposes to rescind the Mode S transponder requirement for
aircraft operating under part 135 of the FAR and those aircraft
operating under part 121 that are not required to have TCAS II.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rulmaking would rescind an agency regulation and
would not change any reporting requirements. Therefore, no review or
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act is required.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
The FAA has determined that this rulemaking is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review). The anticipated costs and benefits associated
with this NPRM are summarized below. (A detailed discussion of costs
and benefits is contained in the full regulatory evaluation contained
in the docket for this NPRM.)
Overview
Although this proposal applies to operators under parts 121 and
135, the benefits and costs sections of this evaluation will only focus
on part 135 operators. Of the part 121 operators, only those not
required to install TCAS II would be affected by this proposed rule.
The FAA is not able, at this time, to determine the number of these
operators because there is no information readily available. For this
reason, only the potential impact on part 135 operators will be
analyzed in this evaluation. The FAA solicits comments from the
aviation community as to the number of part 121 operators not required
to have TCAS II.
This proposed Mode S rescission would apply to all part 135
operators regardless of what kind of transponder (remote-mounted or
panel-mounted) they would purchase. For this evaluation, however, the
FAA will consider only those part 135 operators who would install
remote-mounted transponders. When the FAA estimated the benefits of the
Mode S rescission for part 91 operators, it counted all of the panel
mounted Mode S transponders since those transponders are predominantly
installed in part 91 aircraft. The FAA has since learned that some
panel-mounted transponders are also installed in part 135 aircraft,
especially those with less than 10 seats. Thus, the FAA has not
estimated the number of panel-mounted transponders that are being
operated in part 135 aircraft for this proposed rule. The FAA has not
estimated this number for two reasons. First, the proportion of new
panel-mounted transponders that are installed in part 135 aircraft is
very difficult to estimate. Second, even if that proportion could be
estimated, it could not be used to calculate the benefits for the
proposed rule since they were already used to calculate the benefits of
rescinding the Mode S requirement for part 91 operators. Consequently,
the benefits of the proposed rule are underestimated.
Benefits
The benefits of this proposed rule are the cost-savings to aircraft
operators who would be allowed to purchase Mode A transponders instead
of Mode 2 transponders. The FAA estimates the cost-savings to be
approximately $10 million over the next 10 years. The present value of
these cost-savings would be $7 million (discounted, 7 percent, 1992
dollars).
To estimate the potential cost-savings of this proposed rule, the
FAA estimated the number of remote-mounted transponders that would be
installed in part 135 aircraft with 10 to 29 seats. The FAA estimates
that 780 such aircraft are being operated in the United States. These
aircraft make up the vast majority of aircraft that would be affected
by the proposed rule to rescind the Mode S requirements.
The potential benefits would be the cost-savings that these
operators would realize when they replace an existing remote-mounted
Mode A transponder. The proposed rule would allow them to purchase and
install another remote-mounted Mode A transponder instead of a new
remote-mounted Mode S transponder. To estimate these potential
benefits, the FAA surveyed several transponder manufacturers, fixed-
based operators, and regional airlines in an effort to ascertain
information on the frequency of Mode A transponder replacement.
According to these industry sources, a part 135 operator would purchase
a new transponder, on average, once every 10 years. Thus, over the next
10 years, on average, each part 135 operator would have purchased a new
Mode S transponder.
Currently, an estimated 780 part 135 aircraft would potentially be
affected by this proposed rule. Therefore, the population of part 135
aircraft that would be affected by this proposed rule annually would be
approximately 78 (780/10). This translates into approximately 78
remote-mounted Mode S transponders that would be sold annually over the
next 10 years.
The difference in price (including installation) between the
average remote-mounted Mode A transponder and the average remote-
mounted Mode S transponder is $12,800. This price represents the
average cost-savings that a part 135 operator could realize as a result
of the proposed rule to rescind Mode S requirements. Multiplying this
cost-savings estimate of $12,800 by the number of transponders expected
to be sold over the next 10 years would result in total potential
benefits of $10 million (or $7 million discounted).
Costs
The proposed rule would impose an estimated cost of $910,000 (or
$640,000 discounted) over the next 10 years. This cost impact would
only affect Mode S manufacturers and would be the reduction in profit
earned from Mode S sales. (Sales from Mode S exports would not be
affected by the NPRM.) This proposed rule would not impose costs in the
form of either reduced aviation safety or operational efficiency. The
expected aviation safety and operational efficiency benefits of the
Mode S rule have not been realized because the ground sensors were
never installed and tested. This assessment is based on the following
analysis of each of the potential cost components.
Aviation Safety and Operational Efficiency
Rescinding the Mode S requirement would not decrease operational
efficiency in the air traffic control
[[Page 26039]]
system. In addition, the rescission would not decrease safety to
aircraft operators and the flying public. While areas of high density
air traffic may benefit from the improved target and altitude integrity
of the Mode S system, the benefit will derive primarily from the ground
sensor component; the limited benefit expected from the transponder
component by itself would appear not to warrant the current Mode S
transponder requirement for part 135 aircraft. Since those potential
benefits have never been realized, neither aviation safety nor
operational efficiency would decrease as a result of this proposed
rule.
Mode S Transponder Manufacturers
Another potential cost impact of this proposed rule would be the
additional costs incurred by manufacturers of Mode S transponders in
lost profits. The manufacturers of remote-mounted Mode S transponders
have made investments in designing and developing such products. The
potential costs to those manufactures would be: (1) The initial
investment to develop Mode S transponders for part 135 aircraft and (2)
the potential lost profit on each remote-mounted Mode S transponder
sold in the future. In terms of the initial development cost, there
would be no loss due to this proposed rule. These manufacturers have
incurred costs for developing remote-mounted Mode S transponders in
response to the Mode S rule. Such costs, which are in excess of $4
million (undiscounted), are sunk and cannot be considered as part of
the proposed rule. Once an investment is made and cannot be altered, it
is called a sunk cost. For this reason, sunk costs are not considered
when evaluating the costs of regulatory actions.
In terms of profits on Mode S transponders sold in the future, the
proposed rule would impose a cost. The proposed Mode S rescission would
decrease the demand for remote-mounted Mode S transponders by part 135
operators; hence, the cost to manufacturers would be lost profit. This
lost profit would represent the difference in profit earned from sales
of Mode A rather than Mode S transponders over the next 10 years. Due
to the proprietary nature of such information, the FAA was unable to
ascertain specific rates of profit that manufacturers earn on the sale
of Mode S transponders. However, the FAA did receive information that
indicates the profit earned on the sale of Mode A transponders is 10
percent. The FAA contends that this rate is also a fair representation
for Mode S transponders as well, since they are similar products
installed in the same type of aircraft and purchased by the same part
135 operators.
The amount of potential lost profit (LP) is the amount of revenue
(R) that would be earned from the sale of Mode S transponders (instead
of Mode A transponders) less the cost (C) of manufacturing Mode S
transponders (instead of Mode A transponders). The revenue is
equivalent to the cost-savings incurred by aircraft operators, which is
$7 million (discounted) over the next 10 years. The cost of
manufacturing Mode S tranponders can be estimated based on the
relationship between the rate of profit, the revenue and the
manufacturing cost. In general terms, this relationship can be
represented as R=C x P. In this instance, revenue is $7 million and
profit is 1.10. To estimate the potential lost profit, the following
calculation is made:
R=C x P=$7M
C=$7M/1.10=$6.36M
LP=R-C=$640,000
As shown in the above calculation, the estimate of $640,000
represents the present value lost profit from selling Mode A instead of
Mode S transponders over the next 10 years. The FAA recognizes that
there is some uncertainty in the accuracy of the rate of profit on
transponder sales for manufacturers. This uncertainty is due, in large
part, to the fact that the rate of profit varies among manufacturers of
remote-mounted Mode S transponders. As the result of this uncertainty,
the FAA solicits comments from manufacturers of remote-mounted Mode S
transponders as to the accuracy of the 10 percent rate of profit
estimate.
Conclusion
The potential cost-relieving benefits of this proposed rule are
estimated to be $7 million (discounted). The potential costs are
estimated to be $640,000 (discounted). Based on this assessment, the
FAA has determined that this proposed rule is cost-beneficial.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily burdened
by government regulations. The RFA requires agencies to review rules
that may have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities.''
According to the FAA's Regulatory Flexibility Criteria and Guidance
(2100.14A), a substantial number of small entities means a number that
is not less than 11 and that is more than one third of the small
entities subject to the proposed rule. The small entities that this
proposed rule would potentially affect are aircraft flight instrument
manufacturers that produce no more than 250 units annually. The FAA has
identified the three manufacturers that produce remote mounted Mode S
transponders. On average, these three manufacturers combined sell
approximately 2,200 transponders annually. Each of the three
manufacturers sell, on average, approximately 730 (2,200/3) Mode S
transponders annually. Since 730 exceeds the annual size threshold of
250, none of the U.S. Mode S transponder manufacturers are considered
to be small. Thus, this proposed rule would not impose a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For this
reason, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess the
effects of regulatory changes on international trade. This proposed
rule would not have a competitive trade disadvantage on foreign
companies that sell foreign aviation products or services in the United
States. This proposed rule also would not have a competitive trade
disadvantage on domestic companies that sell U.S. products or services
in foreign countries. This assessment is based on the belief that the
number and type of transponders sold to foreign operators by U.S.
manufacturers would not change as a result of this proposed rescission.
The FAA was not able to identify any foreign manufacturers that sell
transponders in the United States. Based on this information, the FAA
contends that there would be no impact on them. However, the FAA
solicits any comments on the international trade impact.
Federalism Implications
The proposed rescission of the regulation herein would not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore,
in accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed in this preamble and based on the
findings in
[[Page 26040]]
the Regulatory Flexibility Determination and the International Trade
Impact Analysis, the FAA has determined that the proposed rescission of
this regulation is not significant under Executive Order 12866. In
addition,the FAA certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This proposal is considered
not significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR
111034; February 26, 1979). A regulatory evaluation of the regulation,
including a Regulatory Flexibility Determination, and International
Trade Impact Analysis, has been placed in the docket. A copy may be
obtained by contacting the person identified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Charter flights,
Transportation.
14 CFR Part 135
Air taxis, Aircraft, Aviation safety.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend parts 121 and 135 of Title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR parts 121 and 135) as follows:
PART 121--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND
SUPPLEMENTAL AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS OF LARGE
AIRCRAFT
1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702,
44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-44904,
44912, 46105.
2. Section 121.345(c) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 121.345 Radio equipment.
* * * * *
(c) ATC transponder equipment installed after January 1, 1992, must
meet the performance and environmental requirements of the following
TSO's:
(1) For aircraft not required to be equipped with an approved TCAS
II traffic alert and collision avoidance system pursuant to
Sec. 121.356, any class of TSO-C74b or TSO-C74c, as appropriate, or the
appropriate class of TSO-C112 (Mode S).
(2) For aircraft required to be equipped with an approved TCAS II
traffic alert and collision avoidance system pursuant to Sec. 121.356,
the appropriate class of TSO-C112 (Mode S).
PART 135--AIR TAXI OPERATORS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709,
44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722.
2. Section 135.143(c) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 135.143 General requirements.
* * * * *
(c) ATC transponder equipment installed after January 1, 1992, must
meet the performance and environmental requirements of any class of
TSO-C74b or TSO-C74c, as appropriate, or the appropriate class of TSO-
C112 (Mode S).
Issued in Washington, DC on May 15, 1996.
William J. White,
Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 96-13030 Filed 5-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12969 Radio Broadcasting Services; Littlefield, Wolfforth and Tahoka, TX
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 101 (Thursday, May 23, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 25841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12969]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 95-83; RM-8634]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Littlefield, Wolfforth and Tahoka,
TX
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission is issuing a Request for Supplemental
Information regarding the proposal filed by 21st Century Radio
Ventures, Inc., permittee of Station KAIQ(FM), Channel 238C3,
Littlefield, Texas, proposing the reallotment of Channel 238C3 from
Littlefield to Wolfforth, Texas, and the modification of Station
KAIQ(FM)'s construction permit to specify Wolfforth as its community of
license. To accommodate this reallotment, 21st Century also proposed
either the deletion or substitution of the Channel 237A allotment at
Tahoka, Texas. See Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 10 FCC Rcd 6598
(1995). We request that 21st Century submit information sufficient to
show that Wolfforth is deserving of a first local service preference
using the Commission's three factors enumerated in RKO General (KFRC)
and Faye and Richard Tuck. The Request for Supplemental Information
does not afford any parties an opportunity to file counterproposals.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before July 8, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: James
L. Primm, 21st Century Radio Ventures, Inc., 713 Broadway, Santa
Monica, California 90401 (Petitioner).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Request for Supplemental Information, MM Docket No. 95-83, adopted May
8, 1996, and released May 17, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc., (202) 857-
3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
Andrew J. Rhodes,
Acting Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-12969 Filed 5-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12895 Acquisition of Library Materials by Non-purchase Means and Disposition of Surplus Library Materials
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 101 (Thursday, May 23, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25839-25840]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12895]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
36 CFR Part 701
[Docket No. LOC 96-2]
Acquisition of Library Materials by Non-purchase Means and
Disposition of Surplus Library Materials
AGENCY: Library of Congress.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Library of Congress is proposing to revise its policy on
the transfer of surplus library materials to reduce the volume and type
of materials it receives from Federal agencies. The Library wishes to
eliminate the transfer of all bound and unbound serials and restrict
all other transfers to certain specific categories.
DATES: Comments should be received on or before June 24, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Ten copies of written comments should be addressed, if sent
by mail to: Library of Congress, Mail Code 1050, Washington, D.C.
20540. If delivered by hand, copies should be brought to: Office of the
General Counsel, James Madison Memorial Building, Room LM-601, First
and Independence Avenue, S.E.,
[[Page 25840]]
Washington, D.C. 20540-1050, (202) 707-6316.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Johnnie M. Barksdale, Regulations
Officer, Office of the General Counsel, Library of Congress,
Washington, D.C. 20540-1050. Telephone No. (202) 707-1593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 2 U.S.C. 131, 136, and 149, the
Librarian of Congress has general and specific authority for the
administration and disposition of Library materials; it pertains to the
organization and handling of duplicate materials and to the exchange
and transfer operations of the Library, sale, donation to domestic
educational institutions and public bodies, and the disposition of
materials not needed for any of these uses. In order to enhance these
operations and to fill gaps in its permanent collections, the Library
of Congress has encouraged libraries and other agencies of the Federal
Government to send to the Library's Exchange and Gift Division all
library materials that are surplus to their needs. For several decades
this program benefitted the Library, the Federal library community and
the general public. Because of reductions in staffing levels, due to
budgetary constraints, and reduced demand in some categories, the
Library can no longer fully utilize these materials. In analyzing the
costs and benefits to the Federal Government, the Library found that
the expenses to administer the current program far outweigh the
benefits. By implementing this regulation, the Library will be able to
redirect its remaining fiscal and human resources to efficiently
administer a reduced, but more focused, program. Other Federal agencies
will achieve considerable savings in labor and postage by not having to
handle and ship unwanted materials to the Library of Congress. The
proposed replacement text for 36 CFR 701.33(a)(4) is revised to set
forth the general policy on the transfer of surplus library materials
to reduce the volume and type of materials it receives from Federal
agencies.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 701
Libraries, Seals and insignias.
Proposed Regulations
In consideration of the foregoing the Library of Congress proposes
to amend 36 CFR part 701 as follows:
PART 701--PROCEDURES AND SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 701 will continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 2 U.S.C. 131, 136 & 149.
2. Section 701.33(a)(4) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 701.33 Acquisition of library materials by non-purchase means and
disposition of surplus library materials.
* * * * *
(4) Transfer. Libraries and other agencies of the Federal
Government are encouraged to send to the Library for disposition soft
or hard-bound books that are surplus to their needs in the following
categories: Novels and Reference works (e.g. encyclopedias,
directories, guides, such as Encyclopedia of Associations, The World of
Learning, The Statesman's Yearbook, Books in Print, etc.) not older
than three years. And not older than five years in: Humanities (art,
music, belles lettres etc.); History and area studies; Social sciences
(economics, politics, etc.); Education; and Science (agriculture,
medicine, computer science, mathematics, physics, etc.). Such
transferred materials are needed to fill gaps in the Library's
holdings, for exchanges, to transfer to other Federal agencies, and to
make available through the Surplus Books Program to qualified
recipients. The Library's Exchange and Gift Division (E&G) requests
notification at the earliest possible date of any government libraries
that are scheduled to close or be substantially reduced. The Library
also requests that shipments of 1,000 pounds or more be cleared with
E&G in advance. The Library does not accept bound and unbound serials.
Federal agencies should dispose of surplus serials, and other surplus
library materials not specified above, in accordance with their
agency's regulations governing the disposal of surplus materials.
* * * * *
Dated: May 16, 1996.
Approved by:
James H. Billington,
The Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 96-12895 Filed 5-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-04-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12893 Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Washington
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 101 (Thursday, May 23, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 25841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12893]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[WA48-7121b; FRL-5506-4]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans:
Washington
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Washington for the purpose of
updating regulations administered by the Energy Facility Site
Evaluation Council (EFSEC). The SIP revision was submitted by the State
to satisfy Federal Clean Air Act requirements contained in 40 CFR Part
52. In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, the EPA is
approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior
proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision
amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for
the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse
comments are received in response to this proposed rule, no further
activity is contemplated in relation to this rule. If the EPA receives
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second
comment period on this action.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by
June 24, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to Montel Livingston,
Environmental Protection Specialist (OAQ-107), Office of Air Quality,
at the EPA Regional Office listed below. Copies of the documents
relevant to this proposed rule are available for public inspection
during normal business hours at the following locations. The interested
persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment
with the appropriate office at least 24 hours before the visiting day.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of Air Quality
(OAQ-107), 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. The State of Washington,
Department of Ecology, 4550 Third Avenue SE., Lacey, Washington 98504.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Jones, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-
107), EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-1743.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the Direct
Final action which is located in the Rules Section of this Federal
Register.
Dated: May 6, 1996.
Jane S. Moore,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-12893 Filed 5-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12891 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Forsyth County: Approval of Revisions to the Forsyth County Local Implementation Plan
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 101 (Thursday, May 23, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25840-25841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12891]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[NC-80-1-9619b & NC-81-1-9620b; FRL-5505-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Forsyth
County: Approval of Revisions to the Forsyth County Local
Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On November 29, and December 28, 1995, the State of North
Carolina, through the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources, submitted revisions to the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions include the adoption of
three source-specific volatile organic compound rules; Subchapter 3D
.0955, Thread Bonding Manufacturing, .0956, Glass Christmas Ornament
Manufacturing, and .0957 Commercial Bakeries, the deleting of textile
coating, Christmas ornament manufacturing, and bakeries from the list
of sources that must follow interim standards, the defining of di-
acetone alcohol as a non-photochemically reactive solvent, and the
placement of statutory requirements for adoption by reference for
referenced ASTM methods into a single rule rather than each individual
rule that references ASTM methods.
Revisions to Subchapter 3D .1401-.1415; Reasonably Available
Control Technology for Sources of Nitrogen Oxides (Nox RACT);
.1501-.1504 Transportation Conformity; and .1601-.1603; General
Conformity are being addressed in separate Federal Register documents.
In the final rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA is
approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior
proposal because the EPA views this as a noncontroversial revision
amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for
the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse
comments are received in response to this proposed rule, no further
activity is contemplated in relation to this proposed rule. If EPA
receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and
all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final
rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second
comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting
on this document should do so at this time.
DATES: To be considered, comments must be received by June 24, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr.
Randy Terry at the EPA Regional Office listed below.
Copies of the documents relative to this action are available for
public inspection during normal business hours at the following
locations. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24
hours before the visiting day.
[[Page 25841]]
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 443, 401 M Street, SW., Washington DC
20460.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Air Programs Branch, 345
Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
North Carolina Department of Environmental, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27626-0535.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Randy Terry, Regulatory Planning
and Development Section, Air Programs Branch, Air, Pesticides, and
Toxics Management Division, Region 4 Environmental Protection Agency,
345 Courtland Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30365. The telephone number is
404/347-3555, extension 4212.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct
final rule which is published in the rules section of this Federal
Register.
Dated: March 21, 1996.
Phyllis P. Harris,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-12891 Filed 5-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12867 Special Local Regulation: Fireworks Displays Within the First Coast Guard District
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 101 (Thursday, May 23, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25835-25838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12867]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 101 / Thursday, May 23, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 25835]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[CGD01-96-011]
RIN 2115-AE46
Special Local Regulation: Fireworks Displays Within the First
Coast Guard District
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local
regulations for annual fireworks displays that occur throughout the
First Coast Guard District. This regulation is necessary to control
vessel traffic within the immediate vicinity of the fireworks launch
sites and to ensure the safety of life and property during each event.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 6, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to Commander (b), First Coast
Guard District, Captain John Foster Williams Federal Building, 408
Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02110-3350, or may be hand delivered to Room
428 at the same address, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays. Comments will become part of this
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the above
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Benjamin M.
Algeo, Chief, Boating Affairs Branch, First Coast Guard District, (617)
223-8311.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments. Each
person submitting comments should include their name and address,
identify this notice (CGD01-96-011), the specific section of the
proposal to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. Comments and attachments should be submitted on 8\1/2\'' x
11'' unbound paper in a format suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If that is not practical, a second copy of any bound material
is requested. Persons requesting acknowledgment of receipt of comments
should enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. All
comments received during the comment period will be considered by the
Coast Guard and may change this proposal.
The Coast Guard has no plans to hold a public hearing. Persons may
request a public hearing by writing to Commander (b), First Coast Guard
District at the address under ADDRESSES. The request should include
reasons why a hearing would be beneficial. If the Coast Guard
determines that oral presentations will aid this rulemaking, it will
hold a public hearing at a time and place announced by a later notice
in the Federal Register. Good cause exists for providing a comment
period of less than 30 days. Due to the date final information was
available concerning these events, the Coast Guard was unable to
publish this NPRM in time to provide a longer comment period. Due to
the need to establish regulations providing for the safety of these
events, which start on Memorial Day weekend, additional notice would be
impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
Each year, organizations in the First District sponsor fireworks
displays in the same location during the same general time period. The
Coast Guard proposes to establish a special local regulation that
creates a regulated area surrounding the launch platform used during
each fireworks display listed in Table 1 of the new regulation. Table 1
provides dates and locations for the annual fireworks events. Each
event listed in Table 1 will use a barge or on-shore site as the
fireworks launch platform. Given the concentration of explosives at the
launch site, it is necessary to establish special local regulations to
control vessel movement within a 500 yard radius around the launch
platform to ensure the safety of persons and property at these events.
Coast Guard personnel on-scene may allow vessels within the 500 yard
radius should conditions permit. The Coast Guard will publish a notice
in the Federal Register each year which provides the exact dates and
times for these events.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposal is not a significant regulatory action under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It
has been exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget
under that order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies
and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;
February 26, 1979). Due to the short duration of each fireworks
display, the advance notice provided to the marine community, and the
small size of each regulated area, the Coast Guard expects the economic
impact of this proposal to be so minimal that a full Regulatory
Evaluation, under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and
procedures of DOT, is unnecessary.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider the economic impact, on small entities, of a
rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking is required.
``Small entities'' may include (1) small businesses and not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields and (2) governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
For the reasons mentioned in the Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast
Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposal will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If, however, you think that your business or organization
qualifies as a small entity and that this rule will have a significant
economic impact on your business or organization, please submit a
comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and in
what way and to what degree this rule will economically affect it.
Collection of Information
This proposal contains no collection of information requirements
under the
[[Page 25836]]
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposal under the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that
this proposal does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impacts of this
proposal and concluded that, under paragraph 2.B.2.e.34(h) of COMDTINST
16475.1B, (as revised by 61 FR 13564, March 27, 1996) this proposal is
a special local regulation issued in conjunction with annual regattas
or marine parades and is categorically excluded from further
environmental documentation.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Records and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.
Proposed Regulation
For reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR Part 100 as follows:
PART 100--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as
follows.
Authority: 33 USC 1233; 49 CFR 1.46 and 33 CFR 100.35.
2, A new section, Sec. 100.114, is added to read as follows:
Sec. 100.114 First Coast Guard District Fireworks.
(a) Regulated area. That area within 500 yards of the launch
platform for each fireworks display listed in Table 1 of this section.
Table 1--Fireworks Displays
1. Shooters Independence Day
Sponsor: Shooters Waterfront Cafe USA
Date: July 4
Location: Providence River off India Point Park, Providence, RI
2. Salute to Summer
Sponsor: Naval Education and Training Center
Date; Friday of Weekend preceding Labor Day holiday weekend
Location: Narragansett Bay, East Passage, off Coasters Harbor Island,
Newport, RI
3. Yarmouth-Dennis Fireworks
Sponsor: Yarmouth-Dennis Chamber of Commerce
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Nantucket Sound, east of channel entrance to Bass River,
Yarmouth, MA
4. Edgartown Fireworks
Sponsor: Edgartown Firefighters Association
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Edgartown Harbor, Edgartown, MA
5. City of New Bedford Fireworks
Sponsor: City of New Bedford
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: New Bedford Harbor, New Bedford, MA
6. Falmouth Fireworks
Sponsor: Falmouth Fireworks Committee
Date: July 4
Location: Falmouth Harbor, .25 nm east of buoy #16, Falmouth, MA
7. Bristol 4th of July Fireworks
Sponsor: Bristol Fourth of July Committee
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Bristol Harbor, Bristol, RI
8. Oyster Harbor Club Fourth of July Festival
Sponsor: Oyster Harbor Club, Inc
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Tim's Cove, North Bay, Osterville, RI
9. Town of Barnstable Fireworks
Sponsor: Town of Barnstable
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Dunbar Point/Kalmus Beach, Barnstable, MA
10. Onset Fireworks
Sponsor: Prudential Commerce Onset Fire District
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Onset Harbor, Onset, MA
11. Tiverton Waterfront Festival
Sponsor: Tiverton Waterfront Festival Committee
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Grinnel's Beach, Sakonnet River, Tiverton, RI
12. Marion Fireworks
Sponsor: Town of Marion Fireworks Committee
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Silver Shell Beach, Marion, MA
13. Wellfleet Fireworks
Sponsor: Wellfleet Fireworks Committee
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Indian Neck Jetty, Wellfleet, MA
14. Oaks Bluff Fireworks
Sponsor: Oaks Bluff Fireman's Civic Association
Date: Last two weeks in August
Location: Oaks Bluff Beach, Oaks Bluff, MA
15. Anniversary Fireworks
Sponsor: Town of Chilmark
Date: Weekend in September
Location: Menemsha Beach, Chilmark, MA
16. Fall River Celebrates America Fireworks
Sponsor: Fall River Chamber of Commerce
Date: Second Saturday in August
Location: Taunton River, vicinity of buoy #17, Fall River, MA
17. Fireworks on the Navesink
Sponsor: Red Bank Fireworks Committee
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Navesink River, 4 nm WSW Oceanic Bridge, Red Bank, NJ
18. Staten Island's 4th of July
Sponsor: Borough of Staten Island
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Raritan Bay, vicinity of federal anchorages 44 and 45, Ward
Point Bend, NY/NJ
19. Brick Founders Day Fireworks
Sponsor: Brick Township Chamber of Commerce
Date: First weekend in June
Location: Metedeconk River, Windward Beach, Brick Township, NJ
20. Brick Summerfest Fireworks
Sponsor: Brick Township Chamber of Commerce
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Metedeconk River, Windward Beach, Brick Township, NJ
21. First Night Fireworks
Sponsor: First Night Inc.
Date: January 1, upon the stroke of midnight
Location: Boston Inner Harbor, Boston, MA
22. Boston Harborfest Fireworks
Sponsor: Harborfest Committee
Date: Harborfest Week Celebration in June or first week in July
Location: Boston Inner Harbor, Boston, MA
23. Weymouth 4th of July Fireworks
Sponsor: Town of Weymouth Harbormaster
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Weymouth Fore River, Weymouth, MA
24. Gloucester Fireworks
Sponsor: Gloucester Chamber of Commerce
Date: Labor Day holiday weekend
Location: Gloucester Harbor, Gloucester, MA
25. Walsh's Fireworks
Sponsor: Mr. Patrick Walsh
[[Page 25837]]
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Union River Bay, ME
26. Belfast Fireworks
Sponsor: Belfast Bay Festival Committee
Date: Third Saturday in July
Location: Belfast Bay, ME
27. Bangor Fireworks
Sponsor: Bangor 4th of July Corporation
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Bangor/Brewer waterfront, ME
28. Bar Harbor Fireworks
Sponsor: Bar Harbor Chamber of Commerce
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Bar Harbor/Bar Island, ME
29. Summer Music Fireworks
Sponsor: Summer Music Inc.
Date: Weekend during month of August
Location: Niantic River, Harkness Park, Waterford, CT
30. Montauk Independence Day
Sponsor: Montauk Chamber of Commerce
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Montauk Town Beach, Montauk, NY
31. Koch Industrial Fireworks
Sponsor: Koch Industries
Date: Last weekend in August or first weekend in September
Location: Shinnecock Bay, South Hampton, NY
32. Norwich Harbor Day Fireworks
Sponsor: Harbor Day Committee
Date: Last Sunday in August
Location: Norwich Harbor, off American Wharf Marina, Norwich, CT
33. City of Norwalk Fireworks
Sponsor: Norwalk Recreation and Parks Department
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Calf Pasture Beach, Long Island Sound, Norwalk, CT
34. Boys Harbor Fireworks Extravaganza
Sponsor: Boys Harbor Inc.
Date: Second or third weekend in July
Location: Three Mile Harbor, East Hampton, NY
35. Taste of Italy
Sponsor: Italian Heritage Committee
Date: Weekend following Labor Day holiday weekend
Location: Norwich Harbor, off Norwich Marina, Norwich, CT
36. Hartford Riverfest
Sponsor: July 4th Riverfest, Inc.
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Connecticut River, Hartford, CT
37. Fairfield Aerial Fireworks
Sponsor: Fairfield Park Commission
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Jennings Beach, Long Island Sound, Fairfield, CT
38. Middletown Fireworks
Sponsor: City of Middletown
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Connecticut River, Middletown, CT
39. Thames River Fireworks
Sponsor: Town of Groton
Date: Weekend following Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Thames River, off Electric Boat, Groton, CT
40. Stratford Fireworks
Sponsor: Town of Stratford
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Short Beach, Stratford, CT
41. Hartford Riverfront Regatta
Sponsor: Riverfront Recapture Inc.
Date: First or second weekend in August
Location: Connecticut River, Hartford, CT
42. Subfest Fireworks
Sponsor: U.S. Naval Submarine Base
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Thames River, Groton, CT
43. Old Lyme Fireworks
Sponsor: Mr. James R. Rice
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Sound View Beach, Long Island Sound, Old Lyme, CT
44. Norwich American Wharf Fireworks
Sponsor: American Wharf Marina
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Norwich Harbor, Norwich, CT
45. Wesport P.A.L. Fireworks
Sponsor: Westport Police Athletic League
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Compo Beach, Westport, CT
46. Stamford Fireworks
Sponsor: City of Stamford
Date: Date within first two weeks of July
Location: Westcott Cove, Stamford, CT
47. First Night Mystic
Sponsor: Mystic Community Center
Date: December 31
Location: Mystic River, Mystic, CT
48. Cow Harbor Day Fireworks
Sponsor: Village of Northport Harbor
Date: Date within last two weekends of September
Location: Sand Pit, Northport Harbor, Northport, NY
49. Jones Beach State Park Fireworks
Sponsor: Long Island State Park Administration Headquarters
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Fishing Pier, Jones Beach State Park, Wantagh, NY
50. Change Fireworks
Sponsor: Change, Medford, NY
Date: Date within first two weekends of August
Location: Short Beach, Nissequogue, NY
51. Devon Yacht Club Fireworks
Sponsor: Devon Yacht Club, Amagansett, NY
Date: Date within the first week of July
Location: Devon Yacht Club, Amagansett, NY
52. Hempstead Fireworks
Sponsor: Town of Hempstead, NY
Date: Date within the first week of July
Location: Point Lookout, Hempstead, NY
53. Town of Babylon Fireworks
Sponsor: Town of Babylon, NY
Date: Date within the first two weeks of July
Location: Nezeras Island, Babylon, NY
54. American Legion Post 83 Fireworks
Sponsor: Town of Branford American Legion Post 83
Date: Date within the first week of July
Location: Branford Point, Branford, CT
55. U.S. Open Fireworks
Sponsor: Barons Cove Inn, Sag Harbor, NY
Date: Date within the middle two weeks of June
Location: Barons Cove, Sag Harbor, NY
56. Bayville Crescent Club Fireworks
Sponsor: Bayville Crescent Club, Bayville, NY
Date: Independence Day holiday weekend
Location: Cooper Bluff, Cove Neck, NY
57. Yampol Family Fireworks
Sponsor: Azurite Corp. LTD., Fort Lauderdale, FL
Date: Date within the last weekend of May
Location: Barons Cove, Sag Harbor, NY
(b) Special Local Regulations.
(1) The Coast Guard patrol commander may delay, modify, or cancel
the fireworks display as conditions or circumstances require.
(2) No person or vessel may enter, transit, or remain within the
regulated area during the effective period of regulation unless
authorized by the Coast Guard patrol commander.
(3) Vessels encountering emergencies which require transit through
the regulated area should contact the Coast Guard patrol commander on
VHF Channel 16. In the event of an emergency, the Coast Guard patrol
commander may authorize a vessel to transit through the regulated area
with a Coast Guard designated escort.
(4) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard on-scene patrol commander. On-scene patrol personnel
may include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast
Guard. Upon hearing five or more short
[[Page 25838]]
blasts from a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, the operator of a vessel shall
proceed as directed. Members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may also be
present to inform vessel operators of this regulation and other
applicable laws.
(c) Effective dates. This section is in effect for each event
listed in Table 1 on dates and times specified in a Federal Register
notice.
Dated: May 10, 1996.
J.L. Linnon,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 96-12867 Filed 5-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.