issue-1996-06-19•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-06-19
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-06-19
issue-1996-06-19Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-06-19Proposed 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. 96-15658 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets; Amendments to the Uniform Offering Circular for the Sale and Issue of Marketable Book-Entry Treasury Bills, Notes and Bonds
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31072-31073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15658]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Fiscal Service
31 CFR Part 356
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets;
Amendments to the Uniform Offering Circular for the Sale and Issue of
Marketable Book-Entry Treasury Bills, Notes and Bonds
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets,
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of extension of time for submission of comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document extends until July 3, 1996, the deadline for the
submission of comments on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
soliciting comments on the design details, terms and conditions, and
other features of a new type of marketable book-entry security the
Treasury intends to issue. This security, an inflation-protection note
or bond,
[[Page 31073]]
would have a return linked to the inflation rate in prices or wages.
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal
Register on May 20, 1996 (61 FR 25164) and comments were to be received
on or before June 19, 1996.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to: Government Securities
Regulations Staff, Bureau of the Public Debt, Department of the
Treasury, 999 E Street, NW., Room 515, Washington, DC 20239-0001.
Comments received will be available for public inspection and copying
at the Treasury Department Library, Room 5030, Main Treasury Building,
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Norman Carleton, Director, Office of Federal Finance Policy Analysis,
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets, at 202-622-
2680.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of the Treasury (Department
or Treasury) announced its intention to issue a new type of marketable
book-entry security with a nominal return linked to the inflation rate
in prices or wages, as officially published by the United States
Government. In the advance notice of proposed rulemaking that was
published May 20, 1996, the Treasury specifically requested comments
concerning the choice of index, structure of the security, auction
technique, offering sizes, and maturities. The Treasury also invited
comments on other specific issues raised, as well as on any other
issues relevant to the new type of security.
Given the importance of this issue and the desire to provide
sufficient time for parties to evaluate and consider Treasury's
inflation-protection security proposal, particularly since a series of
public meetings to describe further the Department's current thinking
on the subject and to obtain potential investor input just concluded on
June 12, 1996, the Department believes that additional time is
appropriate for market participants and other interested parties to
provide written comments. Therefore, the Department is extending the
comment period for 14 days until Wednesday, July 3, 1996.
Dated: June 14, 1996.
Roger L. Anderson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Federal Finance.
[FR Doc. 96-15658 Filed 6-14-96; 3:58 pm]
BILLING CODE 4810-39-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15622 Virginia Regulatory Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31070-31072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15622]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 31071]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 946
[VA-108-FOR]
Virginia Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public
hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSM is announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the
Virginia regulatory program (hereinafter referred to as the Virginia
program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(SMCRA). The proposed amendment consists of regulatory changes to
implement the remining standards of the Federal Energy Policy act of
1992. The amendment is intended to revise the State program to be
consistent with the Federal regulations as amended on November 27, 1995
(60 FR 58480).
DATES: Written comments must be received by 4:00 p.m., on July 19,
1996. If requested, a public hearing on the proposed amendment will be
held on July 15, 1996. Requests to speak at the hearing must be
received by 4:00 p.m., on July 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and requests to speak at the hearing should
be mailed or hand delivered to Mr. Robert A. Penn, Director, Big Stone
Gap Field Office at the First address listed below.
Copies of the Virginia program, the proposed amendment, a listing
of any scheduled public hearings, and all written comments received in
response to this document will be available for public review at the
addresses listed below during normal business hours, Monday through
Friday, excluding holidays. Each requestor may receive one free copy of
the proposed amendment by contacting OSM's Big Stolen Gap Field Office.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Big Stone Gap
Field Office, 1941 Neeley Road, Suite 201 Compartment 116, Big Stone
Gap, Virginia 24219, Telephone: (703) 523-4303
Virginia Division of Mined Land Reclamation, P.O. Drawer 900, Big
Stone Gap, Virginia 24219, Telephone: (703) 523-8100.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Robert A. Penn, Director, Big Stone Gap Field Office, Telephone:
(703) 523-4303.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Background on the Virginia Program
On December 15, 1981, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally
approved the Virginia program. Background information on the Virginia
program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of
comments, and the conditions of approval can be found in the December
15, 1981, Federal Register (46 FR 61085-61115). Subsequent actions
concerning the conditions of approval and program amendments can be
found at 30 CFR 946.12, 946.13, 946.15, and 946.16.
II. Discussion of the Proposed Amendment
By letter dated May 28, 1996 (Administrative Record No. VA-885),
Virginia submitted amendments to the Virginia program concerning
remining. The amendments are intended to make the Virginia program
consistent with the Federal regulations as amended on November 27, 1995
(60 FR 58480). Virginia stated that the proposed amendments implement
the remining standards of the Federal Energy Policy Act of 1992.
The proposed amendments are as follows:
1. Sec. 480-03-19.700.5 Definitions
(a) ``Lands eligible for remining'' has been added to mean those
lands that would otherwise be eligible for expenditures under section
404 or under section 402(g)(4) of the Federal Act.
(b) ``Unanticipated event or condition'' has been added to mean (as
used in Sec. 480-03-19.773.15), an event or condition related to prior
mining activity which arises from a surface coal mining and reclamation
operation on lands eligible for remining and was not contemplated by
the applicable permit.
2. Sec. 480-03-19.773.15 Review of Permit Applications
(a) New subsection (b)(4) has been added to provide, at (b)(4)(I)
that subsequent to October 24, 1992, the prohibitions of paragraph (b)
of this section regarding issuance of a new permit shall not apply to
any violation that: Occurs after that date; is unabated; and results
from an unanticipated event or condition that arises from a surface
coal mining and reclamation operation on lands that are eligible for
remining under a permit--issued before September 30, 2004, or any
renewals thereof, and held by the person making application for the new
permit.
New subsection (b)(4)(ii) provides that for permits issued under
Sec. 480-03-19.785.25 of this chapter, an event or condition shall be
presumed to be unanticipated for the purpose of this paragraph if it:
arose after permit issuance; was related to prior mining; and was not
identified in the permit.
(b) New subsection (c)(14) has been added to provide that for
permits to be issued under Sec. 480-03-19.785.25 of this chapter, the
permit application must contain: lands eligible for remining; an
identification of the potential environmental and safety problems
related to prior mining activity which could reasonably be anticipated
to occur at the site; and mitigation plans to sufficiently address
these potential environmental and safety problems so that reclamation
as required by the applicable requirements of this chapter can be
accomplished.
3. Sec. 480-03-19.785.25 Lands Eligible for Remining
This new section contains permitting requirements to implement
Sec. 480-03-19.773.15(b)(4), and provides that: (a) Any persons who
submits a permit application to conduct a surface coal mining operation
on lands eligible for remining must comply with this section. (b) any
application for a permit under this section shall be made according to
all requirements of this subchapter applicable to surface coal mining
and reclamation operations. In addition, the application shall--(1) to
the extent not otherwise addressed in the permit application, identify
potential environmental and safety problems related to prior mining
activity at the site and that could be reasonably anticipated to occur.
This identification shall be based on a due diligence investigation
which shall include visual observations at the site, a record review of
past mining at the site, and environmental sampling tailored to current
site conditions. (2) with regard to potential environmental and safety
problems referred to in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, described the
mitigative measures that will be taken to ensure that the applicable
reclamation requirements of this chapter can be met. (c) The
requirements of this section shall not apply after September 30, 1004.
4. Sec. 480-03-19.816/817.116 Revegetation: Standards for success
Subsections (c)(2)(I) have been amended by adding the phrase
``except as provided in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section'' to the
first sentence. This modification was made in response to the new
language added at subsection (c)(2)(ii), and that is identified below.
[[Page 31072]]
New subsections (c)(2)(ii) provide that the responsibility period
shall be two full years for lands eligible for remining included in
permits issued before September 30, 2004, or any renewals thereof. To
the extent that the success standards are established by paragraph
(b)(5) of this section, the lands shall equal or exceed the standards
during the growing season of the last year of the responsibility
period.
III. Public Comment Procedures
In accordance with the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), OSM is now
seeking comments on whether the amendments proposed by Virginia satisfy
the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If the
amendments are deemed adequate, they will become part of the Virginia
program.
Written Comments
Written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues
proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of the
commenter's recommendations. Comments received after the time indicated
under DATES or at locations other than the Big Stone Gap Field Office
will not necessarily be considered in the final rulemaking or included
in the Administrative Record.
Public Hearing
Persons wishing to comment at the public hearing should contact the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by close of
business on July 5, 1996. If no one requests an opportunity to comment
at a public hearing, the hearing will not be held.
Filing of a written statement at the time of the hearing is
requested as it will greatly assist the transcriber. Submission of
written statements in advance of the hearing will allow OSM officials
to prepare adequate responses and appropriate questions.
The public hearing will continue on the specified date until all
persons scheduled to comment have been heard. Persons in the audience
who have not been scheduled to comment, and who wish to do so, will be
heard following those scheduled. The hearing will end after all persons
scheduled to comments and persons present in the audience who wish to
comment have been heard.
Public Meeting
If only one person requests an opportunity to comment at a hearing,
a public meeting, rather than a public hearing, may be held. Persons
wishing to meet with OSM representatives to discuss the proposed
amendments may request a meeting at the Big Stone Gap Field Office by
contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All
such meetings will be open to the public and, if possible, notices of
meetings will be posted in advance at the locations listed under
ADDRESSES. A written summary of each public meeting will be made part
of the Administrative Record.
Any disabled individual who has need for a special accommodation to
attend a public hearing should contact the individual listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
VI. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12866
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review).
Executive Order 12988
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews by section
3 of Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform) and has determined
that, to the extent allowed by law, this rule meets the applicable
standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section. However, these
standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory
programs and program amendments since each such program is drafted and
promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505
of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15 and
732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and
program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a
determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its
implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of
30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met.
National Environmental Policy Act
No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since
section 702(d) of SMCRA [30 U.S.C. 1292(d)] provides that agency
decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.)
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements
previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In
making the determination as to whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and
assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.
Unfunded Mandates
This rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any
given year on any governmental entity or the private sector.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 946
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: June 7, 1996.
Allen D. Klein,
Regional Director, Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center.
[FR Doc. 96-15622 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15604 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 727 and 737 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31061-31063]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15604]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-106-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 727 and 737 Series
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 727 and 737
series airplanes. This proposal would require replacing the fuel cap
assembly with a new assembly on the inlet fitting at the inside top of
the auxiliary fuel tank. The proposal would also require replacing the
INOP placards with new placards. This proposal is prompted by reports
that the fuel cap assembly, due to its design, became loose and allowed
fuel to enter the deactivated auxiliary fuel tanks on in-service
airplanes. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to
prevent unwanted fuel transferring to the deactivated auxiliary fuel
tanks, due to the problems associated with a loose fuel cap assembly.
DATES: Comments must be received by July 29, 1996.
[[Page 31062]]
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-106-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this
location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sulmo Mariano, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; telephone (206) 227-
2686; fax (206) 227-1181.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-106-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
-Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-NM-106-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
On October 31, 1980, the FAA issued AD 80-02-01 R2, amendment 39-
3969 (45 FR 74467, November 10, 1980), applicable to Boeing Model 727
series airplanes on which an operative Boeing-designed auxiliary body
fuel system is installed. In addition, the FAA issued a similar AD 80-
02-02 R2, amendment 39-3970 (45 FR 74467, November 10, 1980), which is
applicable to Boeing Model 737 series airplanes on which an operative
Boeing-designed auxiliary body fuel system is installed. Those ADs were
prompted by reports of loss of fuel from the auxiliary body fuel tank
due to defective and damaged shrouds. The actions required by those
AD's are intended to prevent failure of the fuel system and unwanted
fuel transfer to the auxiliary body fuel tanks.
Events Since Issuance of Previous AD's
Since issuance of those AD's, the FAA has received reports
indicating that, on certain Boeing Model 727 series airplanes, the fuel
cap assembly (which was installed to deactivate the auxiliary fuel
tanks, in accordance with AD 80-02-01 R2) became loose and allowed fuel
to enter the tanks. Investigation revealed that, due to incorrect
procedures that were provided in the relevant service bulletin, the
safety lockwire of the fuel cap assembly was attached to the cap,
rather than to the nut. This condition, if not corrected, could allow
the nut of the fuel cap assembly to back off and the cap to loosen;
consequently, unwanted fuel could then transfer to the auxiliary fuel
tanks.
The fuel cap assembly on certain Model 737 series airplanes is
identical to that on the affected Model 727 series airplanes.
Therefore, those Model 737 series airplanes may be subject to this same
unsafe condition revealed on the Model 727 series airplanes.
Explanation of Relevant Service Information
The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
727-28A0062, Revision 5, dated May 4, 1995 (for Model 727 series
airplanes) and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1032, Revision 2,
dated May 4, 1995 (for Model 737 series airplanes). For airplanes
equipped with forward and/or aft auxiliary fuel tanks that have been
deactivated, these service bulletins contain:
1. Procedures for replacing the fuel cap assembly having part
number (P/N) AN929A24 with a new fuel cap assembly having P/N AN929L24
on the inlet fitting at the inside top of the auxiliary fuel tank; and
2. procedures for replacing the INOP placards with new placards,
which state that the fuel indicators for the auxiliary fuel tanks are
still operational.
For certain other airplanes listed in these service bulletins, no
additional work is necessary.
Explanation of Requirements of Proposed Rule
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the
proposed AD would require replacing the fuel cap assembly with a new
assembly on the inlet fitting at the inside top of the auxiliary fuel
tank. The proposed AD also would require replacing the INOP placards
with new placards; these replacement actions would be required only on
airplanes on which the auxiliary fuel tank has been deactivated. The
actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the
service bulletins described previously.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 211 Boeing Model 727 series airplanes and
36 Boeing Model 737 series airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 134 Boeing Model 727 series
airplanes and 25 Boeing Model 737 series airplanes of U.S. registry may
be affected by this proposed AD, depending on the current configuration
of the airplanes.
For Boeing Model 727 series airplanes, the proposed modification
would take approximately 53 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at
an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would be
supplied by the manufacturer at no cost to the operators. Based on
these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is
estimated to be $3,180 per airplane.
For Boeing Model 737 series airplanes, the proposed modification
would take approximately 18 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at
an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would be
supplied by the manufacturer at no cost to the operators. Based on
these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is
estimated to be $1,080 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions
that no operator has yet accomplished any of
[[Page 31063]]
the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would
accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations proposed 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.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Boeing: Docket 95-NM-106-AD.
Applicability: Model 727 and 737 airplanes equipped with forward
and/or aft auxiliary fuel tanks that have been deactivated,
certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent the nut of the fuel cap assembly from backing off and
the cap from loosening, and subsequently, unwanted fuel transferring
to the auxiliary fuel tanks, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD,
accomplish paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD, in accordance
with Part IV of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 727-28A0062, Revision 5, dated May 4, 1995 (for Model 727
series airplanes), or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1032, Revision
2, dated May 4, 1995 (for Model 737 series airplanes), as
applicable.
(1) Replace the fuel cap assembly having part number (P/N)
AN929A24 with a new fuel cap assembly having P/N AN929L24 on the
inlet fitting at the inside top of the auxiliary fuel tank, in
accordance with the applicable service bulletin. And
(2) Replace the INOP placards with new placards, in accordance
with the applicable service bulletin.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Seattle ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Seattle ACO.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 13, 1996.
James V. Devany,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-15604 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15601 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-15 Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31059-31061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15601]
========================================================================
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. 119 / Wednesday, June 19, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 31059]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-NM-24-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-15
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-
15 airplanes. This proposal would require, among other things,
inspections to detect discrepancies at various locations of pylons 1
and 3, and correction of any discrepancy found. This proposal is
prompted by a report of internal structural damage to the wing engine
pylon that occurred during maintenance of a Model DC-10 series
airplane. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to
ensure the integrity of the structure and attachment of the wing engine
pylon.
DATES: Comments must be received by July 29, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-NM-24-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location
between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,
Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications
Business Administration, Department C1-L51 (2-60). This information may
be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Atmur, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712; telephone
(310) 627-5224; fax (310) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 96-NM-24-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 96-NM-24-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
On May 16, 1980, the FAA issued AD 80-11-05 R1, amendment 39-3981
(45 FR 35310, May 27, 1980), which is applicable to all McDonnell
Douglas Model DC-10-10, -10F, -30, -30F, and -40 series airplanes. That
AD requires a revision to the wing-pylon inspection programs for these
airplanes, which includes various types of inspections to detect
discrepancies, and the correction of any discrepancy found. That action
was prompted by a report of internal structural damage to the wing
engine pylon that occurred during maintenance of a Model DC-10 series
airplane. The requirements of that AD are intended to ensure the
integrity of the structure and attachment of the wing engine pylon.
Since the issuance of AD 80-11-05 R1, the FAA certificated
McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-15 series airplanes for operation in the
U.S. Subsequently, the FAA has determined that these airplanes also are
subject to the unsafe condition addressed in AD 80-11-05 R1, since they
are similar in type design to the airplane models addressed in that AD.
Explanation of Relevant Service Information
The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service
Bulletin 54-74, dated December 21, 1979, which describes procedures for
repetitive visual inspections to detect discrepancies at various
locations of pylons 1 and 3, and correction of any discrepancy found.
The service bulletin indicates that these locations include the
following: the pylon aft bulkhead; the upper surface of the upper spar
aft of station Yn=342.864 to the aft bulkhead; the lower surface of the
upper spar and spar cap angles aft of station Yn=342.864 to the aft
bulkhead; the center and lower (firewall) spar and spar cap angles; the
thrust link installation; the lower and upper forward spherical bearing
installation; the forward bulkhead; and the forward wing attach fitting
(footstool) of the pylon.
Explanation of Requirements of Proposed Rule
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the
proposed AD would require:
1. At each pylon removal and installation, the engine and pylon
must be removed and installed separately, and the pylon aft bulkhead
lug must be protected from contact with certain attach bolt heads.
[[Page 31060]]
2. Performance of various repetitive inspections to detect
discrepancies at various locations of pylons 1 and 3, and correction of
any discrepancy found.
3. Submission of a pylon maintenance program that includes specific
repetitive inspections at intervals of 20,000 hours time-in-service.
Certain of these actions would be required to be accomplished in
accordance with the service bulletin described previously; other
actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the DC-
10 Nondestructive Testing Manual and the DC-10 Maintenance Manual.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 7 Model DC-10-15 airplanes of the affected
design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 2 airplanes of
U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take
approximately 22 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed
actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on
these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is
estimated to be $2,640, or $1,320 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of
this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in
the future if this AD were not adopted.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations proposed 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.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
McDonnell Douglas: Docket 96-NM-24-AD.
-Applicability: All Model DC-10-15 airplanes, certificated in
any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (k) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To ensure the integrity of the structure and attachment of the
wing engine pylon, accomplish the following:
(a) At each pylon removal and installation that is accomplished
after the effective date of this AD: The engine and pylon shall be
removed and installed separately, unless such removal or
installation, or both, as an assembly is accomplished in accordance
with a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.
(b) At each pylon removal and installation that is accomplished
after the effective date of this AD: Protect the pylon aft bulkhead
lug from contact with the clevis-to-wing attach bolt heads using
part number (P/N) DZZ7268-1 in accordance with page 417, dated
January 1, 1982, and page 427, dated May 1, 1985, of Chapter 54-00-
01 of the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Maintenance Manual.
(c) Prior to further flight following any pylon reinstallation
that is accomplished after the effective date of this AD: Accomplish
the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this
AD.
(1) Perform an inspection of the aft pylon bulkhead to detect
cracking, in accordance with page 634, dated December 1, 1979, and
page 634A, dated August 1, 1990, of Chapter 54-10-11 of the
McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Nondestructive Testing Manual.
(2) Perform a visual inspection of the pylon aft spherical
bearing and attaching hardware to verify the security of the nut and
bolt.
(3) Perform a visual inspection of the torque stripe for proper
alignment.
(d) Perform the inspections required by paragraph (e) of this AD
at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2)
of this AD. Thereafter, repeat these inspections at intervals not to
exceed 3,600 hours time-in-service or 12 months, whichever occurs
later.
(1) Prior to the accumulation of 3,600 total hours time-in-
service.
(2) Within 3,600 hours time-in-service or 12 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(e) Perform the inspections required by paragraphs (e)(1)
through (e)(5) of this AD at the times indicated in paragraph (d) of
this AD.
(1) Perform a visual inspection to detect cracking of the
external surfaces of the thrust link forward (pylon) and aft (wing)
attachment lugs, in accordance with paragraph 2.C.(1) of McDonnell
Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 54-74, dated December 21, 1979.
(2) Perform a visual inspection to detect discrepancies of the
upper surface of the pylon upper spar aft of station Yn=342.864, in
accordance with paragraph 2.G. of McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service
Bulletin 54-74, dated December 21, 1979.
(3) Perform a visual inspection to detect discrepancies of the
center and lower (firewall) spar and spar cap angles from the aft
bulkhead to the forward bulkhead, in accordance with paragraph 2.M.
of McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 54-74, dated December
21, 1979.
(4) Perform an inspection for discrepancies at the various
locations of the wing and tail specified on pages 601, 602, 602A,
604, 605, 606, and 608, all dated November 1, 1986; page 603, dated
May 1, 1986; and pages 604A and 607, dated May 1, 1987; of Chapter
05-51-08 of the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Maintenance Manual.
Accomplish the inspections in accordance with the procedures
specified on those pages of the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Maintenance
Manual.
(5) Perform a visual inspection of the pylon aft spherical
bearing and attaching hardware to verify the security of the nut and
bolt, and inspect the torque stripe for alignment.
(f) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Submit a
pylon maintenance program, as an amendment to the maintenance
program, to the assigned FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector for
approval. The pylon maintenance program shall specify that, prior to
the accumulation of 20,000 total hours time-in-service, or within
20,000 hours time-in-service since the last inspection, whichever
occurs later, the operator will accomplish, as a minimum, the
[[Page 31061]]
actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1)through (f)(9) of this AD.
(1) Perform a visual inspection to detect cracking of the pylon
aft bulkhead, in accordance with paragraphs 2.E. and 2.F. of
McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 54-74, dated December 21,
1979; and an eddy current inspection to detect cracking of the pylon
aft bulkhead, in accordance with page 634, dated December 1, 1979,
and page 634A, dated August 1, 1990, of Chapter 54-10-11 of the
McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Nondestructive Testing Manual.
(2) Perform a visual inspection to detect discrepancies of the
front spar bulkhead, in accordance with paragraph 2.H. of McDonnell
Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 54-74, dated December 21, 1979.
(3) Perform a visual inspection to detect cracking of the
attachment fitting-to-pylon forward bulkhead (footstool) of the wing
front spar; perform a detailed visual inspection to detect cracking,
and loose or missing fasteners, of the wing pylon attachment; and
verify that the pre-load indicating (PLI) washers cannot be rotated;
in accordance with paragraph 2.L. of McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service
Bulletin 54-74, dated December 21, 1979.
(4) Perform an inspection to verify that the attach bolt PLI
washers on the lower spherical bearing plug cannot be rotated;
verify that no interference exists between the plug forward flange
aft face, and the forward face of the spherical bearing; and perform
a detailed visual inspection of the plug in situ; in accordance with
paragraph 2.I. of McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 54-74,
dated December 21, 1979.
(5) Perform a visual inspection to verify the condition,
security, and torque stripe alignment of the plug assembly of the
forward upper spherical bearing installation, in accordance with
paragraph 2.J. of McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 54-74,
dated December 21, 1979.
(6) Perform a visual inspection to verify proper installation of
the thrust link bolts, nuts, and retaining washers of the thrust
link installation, in accordance with paragraph 2.C.(2) of McDonnell
Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 54-74, dated December 21, 1979.
(7) Perform an inspection of the aft spherical bearing, as
specified in paragraphs (f)(7)(i) through (f)(7)(iv) of this AD.
(i) Remove the aft spherical bearing through bolt. Inspect the
inner bore of the bushing in situ using Magnaflux bolt and visual
inspection techniques. Perform a visual inspection using a 10x
(power) glass (or equivalent) to detect cracks of the forward and
aft surfaces of the spherical bearing. Reinstall the through bolt.
(ii) Verify that the torque of the through bolt is 1,200 to
1,300 inch-pounds.
(iii) Inspect the clearance of the aft spherical bearing forward
face/clevis.
(iv) Torque stripe the nut to bolt.
(8) Perform an ultrasonic inspection to detect cracking of the
bulkhead lug and wing clevis-to-wing attachment, including the
bolts, in accordance with pages 635, 636, 638, 638A, and 638B, dated
December 1, 1979; page 637, dated September 1, 1993; page 651, dated
February 1, 1982; and page 652, dated August 1, 1992; of Chapter 54-
10-11 of the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Nondestructive Testing Manual.
(9) Accomplish either paragraph (f)(9)(i) or (f)(9)(ii) of this
AD.
(i) Perform an X-ray inspection in situ to ensure the integrity
of the steel thrust links, in accordance with page 632A, dated
August 1, 1984, and page 632B, dated February 1, 1981, of the
McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Nondestructive Testing Manual. Or
(ii) Perform an ultrasonic inspection in situ to ensure the
integrity of the steel thrust links, in accordance with page 632C,
dated August 1, 1985, and page 632D, dated August 1, 1984, of the
McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Nondestructive Testing Manual.
(g) Prior to further flight after a pylon has been subjected to
vertical or horizontal misalignment, or both (e.g., during
maintenance), perform an inspection to detect cracking of the aft
pylon bulkhead, in accordance with page 634, dated December 1, 1979,
and page 634A, dated August 1, 1990, of Chapter 54-10-11 of the
McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Nondestructive Testing Manual.
(h) Prior to further flight following any event that produces
high pylon loads: Perform an inspection of the pylon for structural
integrity, in accordance with pages 601, 602, 602A, 604, 605, 606,
and 608, dated November 1, 1986; page 603, dated May 1, 1986; and
pages 604A and 607, dated May 1, 1987; of Chapter 05-51-08 of the
McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Maintenance Manual.
Note 2: Examples of events that produce high pylon loads,
include, but are not limited to, the following:
Hard or overweight landings (for the purpose of this
AD, overweight landings are made at aircraft weights in excess of
369,000 pounds);
Severe turbulence encounters;
Engine vibration that requires engine removal or
critical engine failure, or both;
Ground damage (work stands, etc.);
Compressor stalls requiring engine removal; and
Excursions from the runway of a nature that might have
imposed loads more severe than those encountered normally on the
runway.
(i) Prior to further flight, correct any discrepancy found
during any inspection required by this AD, in accordance with a
method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO; the Structural
Repair Manual; or McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Service Bulletin 54-74,
dated December 21, 1979; as appropriate.
(j) Within 10 days after accomplishing the inspections required
by this AD, report inspection results, positive or negative, to the
FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector. The report shall include the
information specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(5) of this
AD. Information collection requirements contained in this regulation
have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.
(1) The ``N'' number of the airplane.
(2) The total number of hours time-in-service accumulated on the
airplane.
(3) The pylon number of the airplane.
(4) The specific paragraph (and subparagraph) of this AD that
corresponds with the inspection results being reported.
(5) Specific inspection results: For example, the location and
size of cracking, specific location of discrepant fasteners, and
part numbers.
(k) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(l) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 13, 1996.
James V. Devany,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-15601 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15595 Quizalofop ethyl; Pesticide Tolerances
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31079-31081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15595]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 6E4652/P664; FRL-5377-1]
RIN 2070-AC18
Quizalofop ethyl; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to establish tolerances for the combined residues
of the herbicide quizalofop-p ethyl ester, its acid metabolite
quizalofop-p, and the S enantiomers of both the ester and the acid, all
expressed as quizalofop-p-ethyl ester, in or on the raw agricultural
commodities peppermint tops and spearmint tops. The proposed regulation
to establish maximum permissible levels for residues of the herbicide
was requested in a petition submitted by the Interregional Research
Project No. 4 (IR-4).
DATES: Comments, identified by the docket number [PP 6E4652/P664], must
be received on or before July 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Rm. 1132, CM #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
Comments and data may also be submitted to OPP by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to:
[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data
will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII
file format. All comments and data in electronic form must be
identified by the docket number [PP 6E4652/P664]. Electronic comments
on this proposed rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository
Libraries. Additional information on electronic submissions can be
found in the ``SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION'' section of this document.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI). CBI should not be
submitted through e-mail. Information marked as CBI will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2. A copy of the comment that does not contain CBI must be submitted
for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. All written
comments will be available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the
address given above, from 8 a .m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Hoyt L. Jamerson,
Registration Division (7505W), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St. SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Office location and telephone number: Sixth Floor, Crystal Station #1,
2800 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 308-8783; e-
mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Interregional Research Project No. 4
(IR-4), New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, P.O. Box 231,
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, has submitted pesticide
petition (PP) 6E4652 to EPA on behalf of the Oregon Agricultural
Experiment Station.
This petition requests that the Administrator, pursuant to section
408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C.
346a(e), amend 40 CFR 180.441 by establishing tolerances for the
combined residues of the herbicide quizalofop-p ethyl ester [ethyl (R)-
(2-[4-((6-chloroquinoxalin- 2-yl)oxy)phenoxyl] propionate], its acid
metabolite quizalofop-p [R-(2-[4-((6-chloroquinoxalin-2-
yl)oxy)phenoxy]) propanoic acid], and the S enantiomers of both the
ester and the acid, all expressed as quizalofop-p-ethyl ester, in or on
the raw agricultural commodities peppermint tops and spearmint tops at
2 parts per million (ppm).
The scientific data submitted in the petition and other relevant
material have been evaluated. The toxicological data considered in
support of the proposed tolerances include:
1. Several acute toxicology studies placing technical-grade
quizalofop ethyl in toxicity Category III.
2. An 18-month carcinogenicity study with CD-1 mice fed diets
containing 0, 2, 10, 80 and 320 ppm (equivalent to 0, 0.2, 1.5, 12, and
48 mg/kg/day) with no carcinogenic effects observed under the
conditions of the study at levels up to and including 80 ppm. There was
an elevated incidence of hepatocellular adenomas and carcinomas
combined in CD-1 male mice at the 320 ppm dose level, which exceeded
the maximum tolerated dose (MTD).
3. A 2-year chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in rats fed
diets containing 0, 25, 100 and 400 ppm (equivalent to 0, 0.9, 3.7, and
15.5 mg/kg/day for males and 0, 1.1, 4.6, and 18.6 mg/kg/day for
females) with no carcinogenic effects observed under the conditions of
the study. The NOEL for systemic toxicity is established at 25
[[Page 31080]]
ppm (0.9 mg/kg/day) based on red blood cell destruction in males, and
slight/minimal centrilobular enlargement of the liver in females at the
100 ppm dose level.
4. A 1-year feeding study in dogs fed diets containing 0, 0.625,
2.5, and 10 mg/kg/day with a NOEL of 10 mg/kg/day (HDT).
5. A developmental toxicity study in rats fed dosage levels of 0,
30, 100, and 300 mg/kg/day, with no developmental effects observed
under the conditions of the study. The NOEL for maternal toxicity is
established at 30 mg/kg/day.
6. A developmental toxicity study in rabbits fed dosage levels of
0, 7, 20, and 60 mg/kg/day with no developmental effects observed under
the conditions of the study. The NOEL for maternal toxicity is
established at 20 mg/kg/day based on decreases in food consumption and
body weight gain at 60 mg/kg/day (HDT).
7. A two-generation reproduction study in rats fed diets containing
0, 25, 100 and 400 ppm (equivalent to 0, 1.25, 5, and 20 mg/kg/day)
with a NOEL for developmental toxicity at 25 ppm based on an increase
in liver weight and an increase in the incidence of eosinophillic
changes in the liver at 100 ppm. The NOEL for parental toxicity is
established at 100 ppm based on decreased body weight and premating
weight gain in males at the 400 ppm dose level.
8. Mutagenicity data included gene mutation assays with E. coli and
S. typhimurium (negative); DNA damage assays with B. subtilis
(negative); and a chromosomal aberration test in Chinese hamster cells
(negative).
OPP's Health Effects Division, Carcinogenicity Peer Review
Committee (CPRC) has evaluated the rat and mouse cancer studies for
quizalofop ethyl along with other relevant short-term toxicity studies,
mutagenicity studies, and structure-activity relationships. The CPRC
has classified quizalofop ethyl as a Group D carcinogen (not
classifiable as to human cancer potential). The Group D classification
is based on an approximate doubling in the incidence of male mice liver
tumors between controls and the high dose. This finding was not
considered strong enough to warrant the classification of a Category C
(possible human carcinogen); the increase was of marginal statistical
significance, occurred at a high dose which exceeded the predicted MTD,
and occurred in a study in which the concurrent control for liver
tumors was somewhat low as compared to the historical controls, while
the high dose control group was at the upper end of previous historical
control groups. No new cancer studies are required for quizalofop ethyl
at this time.
The Reference Dose (RfD) for quizalofop ethyl is calculated at
0.009 mg/kg of body weight/day. The RfD is based on the NOEL of 0.9 mg/
kg/day from the 2-year rat feeding study, and an uncertainty factor of
100. The theoretical maximum residue contribution (TMRC) from existing
tolerances and the proposed tolerance for mint tops utilizes 5 percent
of the RfD for the overall U.S. population and 18.5 percent of the RfD
for non-nursing infants (the population subgroup most highly exposed).
EPA generally has no concern for dietary exposures below 100 percent of
the RfD.
The nature of the residue in plants is adequately understood. An
adequate analytical method (HPLC-UV) is available for enforcement
purposes. Prior to its publication in the Pesticide Analytical Manual,
Volume II (PAM II), the enforcement method is being made available in
the interim to anyone who is interested in pesticide residue
enforcement from: By mail, Calvin Furlow, Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: Crystal
Mall #2, Rm 1128, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202
(703)305-5805.
There is no reasonable expectation that secondary residues will
occur in milk, eggs, or meat of livestock and poultry since there are
no significant livestock feed commodities associated with this action.
Data submitted with the petition demonstrate that residues of
quizalofop ethyl do not concentrate in mint oil. The proposed
tolerances for peppermint and spearmint tops is adequate to cover
residues in mint oil.
There are presently no actions pending against the continued
registration of this chemical. The pesticide is considered useful for
the purpose for which the tolerance is sought.
Based on the information and data considered, the Agency has
determined that the tolerance established by amending 40 CFR part 180
would protect the public health. Therefore, it is proposed that the
tolerance be established as set forth below.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, which contains any of the
ingredients listed herein, may request within 30 days after publication
of this notice in the Federal Register that this rulemaking proposal be
referred to an Advisory Committee in accordance with section 408(e) of
the FFDCA.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
proposed regulation. Comments must bear a notation indicating the
docket number [PP 6E4652/P664].
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [PP 6E4652/P664] (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does
not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the Virginia address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the
beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order (i.e.,
Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines ``significant'' as
those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially
affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal
governments or communities (also known as ``economically
significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or
[[Page 31081]]
otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another
agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement,
grants, user fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined that
this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to OMB
review.
This action does not impose any enforceable duty, or contain any
``unfunded mandates'' as described in Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), or require prior consultation as
specified by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993),
entitled Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Partnership, or
special consideration as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994).
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator has determined that regulations
establishing new tolerances or raising tolerance levels or establishing
exemptions from tolerance requirements do not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A
certification statement explaining the factual basis for this
determination was published in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46
FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 10, 1996.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be amended as
follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. In Sec. 180.441, by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 180.441 Quizalofop ethyl; tolerances for residues.
* * * * *
(c) Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the
herbicide quizalofop-p ethyl ester [ethyl (R)-(2-[4-((6-
chloroquinoxalin-2-yl)oxy)phenoxyl] propionate], its acid metabolite
quizalofop-p [R-(2-[4-((6-chloroquinoxalin-2-yl)oxy)phenoxy]) propanoic
acid], and the S enantiomers of both the ester and the acid, all
expressed as quizalofop-p-ethyl ester, in or on the following raw
agricultural commodities:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cottonseed................................................. 0.05
Peppermint, tops........................................... 2
Spearmint, tops............................................ 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-15595 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15593 Public Meeting on School Bus Transportation.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31086-31087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15593]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 95-98; Notice No. 2]
Public Meeting on School Bus Transportation.
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces a public meeting at which NHTSA will
seek information about school bus transportation. NHTSA held a national
meeting on February 14, 1996. In response to comments received at the
February meeting, NHTSA is holding regional meetings. NHTSA is seeking
information from school bus manufacturers, school transportation
providers, and other members of the public on issues related to the
transportation of school children. NHTSA is also requesting suggestions
for actions with respect to NHTSA's regulations and Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that govern the manufacture of school
buses. This notice also invites written comments on the same subject.
DATES: Public meeting: The meeting will be held on August 15, 1996 at
9:00 a.m. Those wishing to make oral presentations at the meeting
should contact Charles Hott, at the address or telephone number listed
below, by August 8, 1996.
Written comments: Written comments may be submitted to the agency
and must be received by September 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Public meeting: The public meeting will be held at the
following location: Holiday Inn, 411 South Larkin, Joliet, IL 60436,
Tel: (815) 729-2000.
Written comments: All written comments (preferably 10 copies)
should be mailed to the Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Room 5109, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
Please refer to the docket number when submitting written comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hott, Office of Vehicle Safety
Standards, NPS-15, NHTSA, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590
(telephone 202-366-0247, Fax: 202-366-4329).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Reform
Calling for a new approach to the way Government regulates the
private sector, President Clinton asked Executive Branch agencies to
improve the regulatory process. Specifically, the President requested
that agencies: (1) cut obsolete regulations; (2) reward agency and
regulator performance by rewarding results, not red tape; (3) create
grassroots partnerships by meeting with those affected by regulations
and other interested parties; and (4) use consensual rulemaking, such
as regulatory negotiation, more frequently.
NHTSA previously announced public meetings to create grassroots
partnerships with regulated industries and other affected parties that
do not deal with NHTSA on a routine basis. By meeting with these
groups, NHTSA believes that it can build a better understanding of
their needs and concerns.
At the February 14, 1996 public meeting on school bus
transportation commenters suggested that NHTSA hold public meetings in
different regions of the country. By holding regional public meetings
on school bus transportation, NHTSA hopes to obtain the views from
those parties affected by school bus transportation and the public on
the local issues, as well as, national issues. NHTSA believes that
their views are important because school bus transportation is an issue
that affects most school districts in the United States. This meeting
is a way of obtaining information from those persons that do not attend
the national meetings on school transportation on a regular basis.
NHTSA has decided to hold these meetings based on the geographic
locations served by the NHTSA Regional Offices. This meeting is being
held in NHTSA Region 5 which includes the following States: Illinois;
Indiana; Michigan; Minnesota; Ohio; and Wisconsin. Interested parties
from these states are encouraged to attend. However, parties from other
states are also welcome.
NHTSA recognizes that manufacturers who build school buses operate
under different conditions than manufacturers of passenger cars and
trucks. In addition, the agency is aware that school transportation
providers and school bus manufacturers share a common interest in
matters relating to pupil transportation safety. Therefore, the agency
has decided to hold public meetings to listen to the views of these
groups and others in order to be better informed of their specific
needs. The agency is interested in obtaining their views on how it can
improve its regulations that govern the manufacture of school buses.
Suggestions should be accompanied by a statement of the rationale for
the suggested action and of the expected consequences of that action.
Suggestions should address at least the following considerations:
Administrative/compliance burdens
Cost effectiveness
Costs of the existing regulation and the proposed changes to
consumers
Costs of testing or certification to regulated parties
Effects on safety
Effects on small businesses
Enforceability of the standard
Whether the suggestion reflects a ``common sense'' approach to
solving the problem
Statements should be as specific as possible and provide the best
available supporting information. Statements also should specify
whether any change recommended in the regulatory process would require
a legislative change in NHTSA's authority.
Other Topics of Interest
In recent years there have been many changes to the Federal
requirements for school buses. These new requirements include stop arms
for all school buses, more emergency exits for most of the larger
school buses, performance requirements for wheelchair restraints in
school buses, and mirror systems that are performance based instead of
design based. Future requirements includes antilock brake systems for
large school buses and may require small school buses to meet Standard
No. 221, joint strength.
Improvements have been made to the safety of the school bus loading
zones. The stop arm and mirror requirements
[[Page 31087]]
were implemented to reduce the number of loading zone injuries and
fatalities. However, changes in clothing style and design have resulted
in snagging and dragging injuries to bus occupants departing from the
school bus. Most manufacturers have implemented recalls to modify
handrail designs.
The agency is interested in your views on how the above regulations
and developments have affected school bus safety. Have increased costs
of school buses affected the normal replacement cycle for your school
buses?
There have also been many changes to the Federal requirements for
school bus drivers. School bus drivers are now required to possess a
commercial drivers license which requires pre-employment drug tests and
random drug and alcohol tests. Staff from the Federal Highway
Administration will be available to answer questions at the meeting.
Procedural Matters
The agency intends to conduct the meeting informally so as to allow
for maximum participation by all who attend. Interested persons may ask
questions or provide comments during any period after a party has
completed its presentation, on a time allowed basis as determined by
the presiding official. If time permits, persons who have not requested
time to speak, but would like to make a statement, will be afforded an
opportunity to do so.
The agency is interested in obtaining the views of its customers
both orally and in writing. An agenda for the meeting will be made
based on the number of persons wishing to make oral presentations and
will be available on the day of the meeting.
Those speaking at the public meeting should limit their
presentations to 20 minutes. If the presentation will include slides,
motion pictures, or other visual aids, please indicate so that the
proper equipment may be made available. Presenters should bring at
least one copy of their presentation to the meeting so that NHTSA can
readily include the material in the public record.
A schedule of participants making oral presentations will be
available at the designated meeting room. NHTSA will place a copy of
any written statement in the docket for this notice. Participation in
the meeting is not a prerequisite for the submission of written
comments. NHTSA invites written comments from all interested parties.
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, Room 5219, at the street address given above,
and copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation (49 CFR Part 512.)
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered. Comments will be
available for inspection in the docket.
After the closing date, NHTSA will continue to file relevant
information in the docket as it becomes available. It is therefore
recommended that interested persons continue to examine the docket for
new material.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued: June 14, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-15593 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15590 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Plans; Louisiana; Revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP); Addressing Ozone Monitoring
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15590]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[LA-16-1-7165b; FRL-5522-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Plans; Louisiana;
Revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP); Addressing Ozone
Monitoring
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to Louisiana's SIP
for ozone. This action is based upon a revision request which was
submitted by the State to satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air
Act, as amended November 15, 1990, and the Photochemical Assessment
Monitoring Stations (PAMS) regulations. The PAMS regulations require
the State to provide for the establishment and maintenance of an
enhanced ambient air quality monitoring network in the form of PAMS by
November 12, 1993.
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 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. Any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by
July 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr.
Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), 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. 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 6, Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Divison, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733, telephone (214) 665-7214.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality
and Radiation Protection, H. B. Garlock Building, 7290 Bluebonnet
Blvd., Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70810.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jeanne McDaniels, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7254.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the direct
final action of the same title which is located in the rules section of
the Federal Register.
Dated: June 10, 1996.
Allyn M. Davis,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-15590 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15584 3-Dichloroacetyl-5-(2-furanyl)-2,2-dimethyloxazolidine; Extension of Temporary Tolerances
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31077-31079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15584]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 1E4031/P666; FRL-5369-4]
RIN 2070-AB78
3-Dichloroacetyl-5-(2-furanyl)-2,2-dimethyloxazolidine; Extension
of Temporary Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to extend the time-limited tolerances for
residues of the inert ingredient (safener), 3-dichloroacetyl-5-(2-
furanyl)-2,2-dimethyloxazolidine (CAS Reg. No. 121776-33-8) in or on
corn from June 30, 1996 to June 30, 1998.
DATES: Comments, identified with the docket number [PP 1E4031/P666]
must be received on or before July 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental
[[Page 31078]]
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460. In person,
bring comments to: Rm. 1132 CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, VA 22202. Comments and data may also be submitted
electronically by sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: opp-
[email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted as an
ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of
encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on disks in
WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII file format. All comments and data
in electronic form must be identified by the docket number [PP 1E4031/
P666]. No Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be submitted
through e-mail. Electronic comments on this proposed rule may be filed
online at many Federal Depository Libraries. Additional information on
electronic submissions can be found below in this document.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this notice may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI). Information so marked will
not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40
CFR Part 2. A copy of the comment that does not contain CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked
confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. All
written comments will be available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at
the address given above, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Indira Gairola, Registration
Division (7505W), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office
location and telephone number: sixth floor, Crystal Station #1 2800
Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 308-8371; e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA issued a rule (FRL-4777-2), which was
published in the Federal Register of May 10, 1994 (59 FR 24057),
announcing the establishment of temporary tolerances for residues of 3-
dichloroacetyl-5-(2-furanyl)-2,2-dimethyloxazolidine on corn. These
tolerances were issued in a response to pesticide petition (PP 1E4031),
submitted by Monsanto Company Suite 1100, 700 14th Street NW.,
Washington, DC. 20005.
In order to allow the Agency sufficient time to complete its review
of additional chemical oncogencity data submitted by the petitioner,
EPA proposes that the time-limited tolerances for 3-dichloroacetyl-5-
(2-furanyl)-2,2-dimethyloxazolidine on corn, which now expire on June
30, 1996 be extended to June 30, 1998.
The data considered in support of the time-limited tolerance is
discussed in the final rule, which was published in the Federal
Register of May 10, 1994 (59 FR 24057).
Based on the information and data considered. the Agency has
determined that the tolerance established by amending 40 CFR part 180
would protect the public health. Therefore, it is proposed that the
tolerance be established as set forth below.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, which contains any of the
ingredients listed herein, may request within 30 days after publication
of this notice in the Federal Register that this rulemaking proposal be
referred to an Advisory Committee in accordance with section 408(e) of
the FFDCA.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
proposed regulation. Comments must bear a notation indicating the
docket number [PP 1E4031/P666].
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [PP 1E4031/P666] (including any comments and data submitted
electronically). A public version of this record, including printed,
paper versions of electronic comments, which does not include any
information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The public
record is located in Room 1132 of the Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments may be sent directly to EPA at:
[email protected].
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the Virginia address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the
beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order
(i.e., Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines
``significant'' as those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and
materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local or tribal governments or communities (also known as
``economically significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another
agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement,
grants, user fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator has determined that regulations
establishing new tolerances or raising tolerance levels or establishing
exemptions from tolerance requirements do not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A
certification statement to this effect was published in the Federal
Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
This action does not impose any enforceable duty, or contain any
``unfunded mandates'' as described in Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), or require prior consultation as
specified by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993),
entitled Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, or special
consideration as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
[[Page 31079]]
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 4, 1996.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.471 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 180.471 3-Dichloroacetyl-5-(2-furanyl)-2,2-dimethyloxazolidine;
tolerances for residues.
Time-limited tolerances are established for residues of 3-
dichloroacetyl-5-(2-furanyl)-2,2-dimethyloxazolidine (CAS Reg. No.
121776-33-8) when used as an inert ingredient (safener) in pesticide
formulations in or on the following agricultural commodities:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million Expiration date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn, fodder (field).............. 0.01 June 30, 1998
Corn, forage (field).............. 0.01 June 30, 1998
Corn, grain (field)............... 0.01 June 30, 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc.96-15584 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15563 Roadway Worker Protection
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 31085] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 96-15563] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration 49 CFR Part 214 [FRA Docket No. RSOR 13, Notice No. 7] RIN 2130-AA86 Roadway Worker Protection AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of hearing. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: On March 14, FRA published its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Roadway Worker Protection (61 FR 10528), which was the product of the agency's first regulatory negotiation. FRA announced at that time that a public hearing would only be scheduled if it was requested, since the negotiated rulemaking process has already provided a significant opportunity for oral presentations and participation by the public. An expression of interest in having a hearing was submitted on behalf of one person whom we have not been able to identify or contact. However, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553 and 49 U.S.C. Sec. 20103(e), FRA is holding the requested hearing. DATES: A public hearing will be held from 12:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. on July 11, 1996. Any person who wishes to speak at the hearing should notify the FRA Docket Clerk at least five working days before the hearing, by telephone (202) 366-2257 or by mail. ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be held in the Executive Room, Holiday Inn Capitol Hill, which is located at 415 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gordon A. Davids, P.E., Bridge Engineer, Office of Safety, FRA, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Room 8326, Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone: 202-366-0507); Phil Olekszyk, Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Compliance and Program Implementation, FRA, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Room 8320A, Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone 202-366-0897); or Cynthia Walters, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Room 8201, Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone 202-366-0621). S. Mark Lindsey, Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration. [FR Doc. 96-15563 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15562 Roadway Worker Protection
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 31085-31086] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 96-15562] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 49 CFR Part 214 [FRA Docket No. RSOR 13, Notice No. 8] RIN 2130-AA86 Roadway Worker Protection AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA); Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of meeting. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Federal Railroad Administration is announcing a meeting of the Roadway Worker Protection Advisory Committee (Committee) to review comments submitted in response to the publication of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on March 14, (61 FR 10528). DATES: The Committee will hold an additional meeting on July 12, 1996 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Executive Room, Holiday Inn, Capitol Hill, which is located at 415 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Walters, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Room 8201, Washington, D.C. 20590 (Telephone: 202-366-0621); or Gordon Davids, P.E., Bridge Engineer, Office of Safety, FRA, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Room 8326, Washington, D.C. 20590 (Telephone: 202-366-0507). [[Page 31086]] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 14, 1996, FRA published its NPRM on Roadway Worker Protection. The NPRM was the product of FRA's first negotiated rulemaking. Consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. 553), FRA solicited and received comments on the proposed rule. In accordance with spirit of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. 561 et seq.) FRA is allowing the Committee to consider these comments and make a recommendation to FRA regarding their status prior to issuing a Final Rule. FRA continues to believe that public participation is critical to the success of this process. This negotiating session will be open to the public, pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463). S. Mark Lindsey, Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration. [FR Doc. 96-15562 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15480 Sodium Salt of Fomesafen; Pesticide Tolerance
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31075-31077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15480]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 6E4653/P665; FRL-5377-4]
RIN 2070-AC18
Sodium Salt of Fomesafen; Pesticide Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to establish a time-limited tolerance for
residues of the herbicide sodium salt of fomesafen (also referred to in
this document as fomesafen) in or on the raw agricultural commodity
snap beans. The proposed regulation to establish a maximum permissible
level for residues of the herbicide was requested in a petition
submitted by the Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4).
DATES: Comments, identified by the docket number [PP 6E4653/P665], must
be received on or before July 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Rm. 1132, CM #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
Comments and data may also be submitted to OPP by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to:
[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data
will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII
file format. All comments and data in electronic form must be
identified by the docket number [PP 6E4653/P665]. Electronic comments
on this proposed rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository
Libraries. Additional
[[Page 31076]]
information on electronic submissions can be found in the
``SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION'' section of this document.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI). CBI should not be
submitted through e-mail. Information marked as CBI will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2. A copy of the comment that does not contain CBI must be submitted
for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. All written
comments will be available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the
address given above, from 8 a .m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Hoyt L. Jamerson,
Registration Division (7505W), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St. SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Office location and telephone number: Sixth Floor, Crystal Station #1,
2800 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 308-8783; e-
mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Interregional Research Project No. 4
(IR-4), New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, P.O. Box 231,
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, has submitted pesticide
petition (PP) 6E4653 to EPA on behalf of the Agricultural Experiment
Stations of Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Minnesota, New York, North
Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.
This petition requests that the Administrator, pursuant to section
408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C.
346a(e), amend 40 CFR 180.433 by establishing a time-limited tolerance
for residues of the sodium salt of fomesafen, 5-[2-chloro-4-
(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-N-(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzamide, in or on
the raw agricultural commodity snap beans at 0.05 parts per million
(ppm). IR-4 proposed that registration for use of fomesafen on snap
beans be geographically limited to the following states: Alabama,
Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin. Additional geographical restrictions, within these states,
will be specified on the pesticide label.
EPA is proposing to establish this tolerance with an expiration
date of December 31, 1998, to allow IR-4 time to conduct additional
residue field trials in support of a permanent tolerance for regional
registration for use of fomesafen on snap beans. The available residue
data show no-detectable residues (less than 0.05 ppm) on snap beans
from the proposed use pattern. The requested residue field trials are
expected to provide confirmatory data in support of a permanent
tolerance for residues of fomesafen on snap beans at 0.05 ppm.
The scientific data submitted in the petition and other relevant
material have been evaluated. The toxicological data considered in
support of the proposed tolerance include:
(1) A 6-month feeding study in dogs fed diets containing 0, 0.1,
1.0 or 25 mg/kg/day with a no-observed-effect level (NOEL) of 1.0 mg/
kg/day. Dogs fed 25 mg/kg/day demonstrated altered lipid metabolism and
liver change.
(2) A 2-year feeding/carcinogenicity study with rats fed diets
containing 0, 5, 100, or 1,000 ppm with a NOEL for systemic effects of
5 ppm (0.25 mg/kg/day). At the lowest-effect level (LEL) 100 ppm (5 mg/
kg/day) there was liver toxicity and decreased body weight. There were
no carcinogenic effects observed under the conditions of the study.
(3) A 2-year feeding/carcinogenicity study with mice fed diets
containing 0, 1, 10, 100, or 1,000 ppm (equivalent to 0.15, 1.5, 15, or
150 mg/kg/day) with statistically significant increases in the
incidences of liver adenomas in male mice at 1, 100, and 1,000 ppm and
in female mice at 100 and 1,000 ppm, and statistically significant
increases in the incidences of liver carcinomas and combined liver
carcinomas and adenomas in both sexes at 1,000 ppm.
(4) A 2-generation reproduction study in rats fed diets containing
0, 50, 250, or 1,000 ppm (equivalent to 2.5, 12.5, or 50 mg/kg/day)
with no reproductive effects observed. The NOEL for systemic toxicity
(reduction in body weight and liver necrosis) is established at 250 ppm
for this study.
(5) A developmental toxicity study in rats given oral doses of 0,
50, 100, or 200 mg/kg/day on gestation days 6 to 15 with no
developmental toxicity.
(6) A developmental toxicity study in rabbits given oral doses of
0, 2.5, 10, or 40 mg/kg/day on gestation days 6 to 18 with no
developmental toxicity.
(7) Fomesafen tested negative in assay systems for gene mutation,
structural chromosome aberration, and other genotoxic effects.
Fomesafen did produce a weak clastogenic response in rat bone marrow.
(8) Metabolism studies in rats indicate that more than 90 percent
of the compound is excreted within 7 days of ingestion. The rat
metabolism studies also show that fomesafen tends to concentrate in the
liver, prior to excretion. Fomesafen is metabolized through hydrolytic
cleavage of the amide linkage to form aciflurofen, which is classified
by EPA as a probable human carcinogen (Group B2).
Based on a weight-of evidence determination, OPP's Health Effects
Division, Carcinogenicity Peer Review Committee (CPRC) has classified
fomesafen as a Group C carcinogen (possible human carcinogen). The
upper-bound carcinogenic risk from dietary exposure to fomesafen was
calculated using a potency factor (Q*) of 0.19 (mg/kg/day)-1
and dietary exposure as estimated by the Anticipated Residue
Contribution (ARC) for existing tolerances and the proposed tolerance
for snap beans. The upper-bound carcinogenic risk from established
tolerances and the proposed tolerance for snap beans is calculated at
1.56 x 10-6. The upper-bound cancinogenic risk from the proposed
use on snap beans is calculated at 1.4 x 10-6. EPA concludes
that the potential cancer risk from residues of fomesafen resulting
from established tolerances and the proposed tolerance for snap beans
is negligible.
The Reference Dose (RfD) for fomesafen has not been established by
OPP's Health Effects Division, RfD Committee. For purposes of this
action, the RfD is calculated at 0.0025 mg/kg of body weight/day. The
RfD is based on a NOEL of 0.25 mg/kg/day from the rat feeding/
carcinogenicity study and an uncertainty factor of 100. The ARC for the
overall U.S. population from established tolerances and the proposed
tolerance for snap beans utilizes less than 1 percent of the RfD. EPA
generally has no concern for exposures below 100 percent of the RfD.
The nature of the residue in plants and animals is adequately
understood. The residue of concern is fomesafen per se. An adequate
analytical method for enforcing this tolerance has been published in
the Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM 11). Secondary residues are not
expected to occur in milk, eggs, and meat as a result of this action
since snap beans are not a significant livestock feed commodity.
There are presently no actions pending against the continued
[[Page 31077]]
registration of this chemical. The pesticide is considered useful for
the purpose for which the tolerance is sought.
Based on the information and data considered, the Agency has
determined that the tolerance established by amending 40 CFR part 180
would protect the public health. Therefore, it is proposed that the
tolerance be established as set forth below.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, which contains any of the
ingredients listed herein, may request within 30 days after publication
of this notice in the Federal Register that this rulemaking proposal be
referred to an Advisory Committee in accordance with section 408(e) of
the FFDCA.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
proposed regulation. Comments must bear a notation indicating the
docket number [PP 6E4653/P665].
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [PP 6E4653/P665], (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does
not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
opp-D[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the Virginia address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the
beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order
(i.e., Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines
``significant'' as those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and
materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local or tribal governments or communities (also known as
``economically significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another
agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement,
grants, user fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined that
this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to OMB
review.
This action does not impose any enforceable duty, or contain any
``unfunded mandates'' as described in Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), or require prior consultation as
specified by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993),
entitled Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, or special
consideration as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994).
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator has determined that regulations
establishing new tolerances or raising tolerance levels or establishing
exemptions from tolerance requirements do not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A
certification statement explaining the factual basis for this
determination was published in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46
FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 7, 1996.
Susan Lewis,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be amended as
follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. In Sec. 180.433, by designating the existing text as paragraph
(a) and by adding a paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 180.433 Sodium salt of fomesafen; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
(b) Tolerances with regional registration are established for
residues of the sodium salt of fomesafen, 5-[2-chloro-4-
(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-4-N-(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzamide, in or
on the raw agricultural commodities, as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodities million Expiration date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beans, snap........................ 0.05 December 31, 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-15480 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15479 Triadimefon; Revocation of Pesticide Tolerances and a Food Additive Regulation
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31081-31083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15479]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 180 and 185
[OPP-300431; FRL-5379-7]
RIN 2070-AC18
Triadimefon; Revocation of Pesticide Tolerances and a Food
Additive Regulation
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke the pesticide tolerances for
triadimefon on barley grain, green forage and straw and the food
additive regulation for triadimefon on milled fractions of barley
(except flour) because there are no longer registered uses of
triadimefon on barley. EPA is proposing that the revocation of the
tolerance become effective as of May 23, 1997.
DATES: Written comments, identified by the docket number OPP-300431,
must be received on or before July 19, 1996. This revocation is
proposed to become effective on May 23, 1997.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Rm. 1132, CM #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. Information submitted and any
comment(s) concerning this notice may be claimed confidential by
marking any part or all of that information as ``Confidential Business
Information'' (CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
comment(s) that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in
the public record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed
publicly by EPA without prior notice to the submitter. Information on
the proposed action and any written comments will be available for
public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the Virginia address given above, from
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII file format.
All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the
docket number [OPP-300431]. No Confidential Business Information (CBI)
should be submitted through e-mail. Electronic comments on this
proposed rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Additional information on electronic submissions can be found below in
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail, Lisa Nisenson, Special Review
Branch (7508W), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and
telephone number: 3rd floor, Crystal Station, 2800 Crystal Drive,
Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 308-8031; e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Statutory Background
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 301 et
seq., authorizes the establishment by regulation of maximum permissible
levels of pesticides in foods. Such regulations are commonly referred
to as ``tolerances.'' Without such a tolerance or an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance, a food containing a pesticide residue is
``adulterated'' under section 402 of the FFDCA and may not be legally
moved in interstate commerce. 21 U.S.C. 331, 342.
The FFDCA has separate provisions for tolerances for pesticide
residues on raw agricultural commodities (RACs) and tolerances on
processed food. For pesticide residues in or on RACs, EPA establishes
tolerances, or exemptions from tolerances when appropriate, under
section 408. 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA regulates pesticide residues in
processed foods under section 409, which pertains to ``food
additives.'' 21 U.S.C. 348. Maximum residue
[[Page 31082]]
regulations established under section 409 are commonly referred to as
food additive regulations (hereafter referred to as ``FARs'').
If a food additive regulation must be established, section 409 of
the FFDCA requires that the use of the pesticide will be ``safe'' (21
U.S.C. 348(c)(3)). Relevant factors in this safety determination
include (1) the probable consumption of the pesticide or its
metabolites; (2) the cumulative effect of the pesticide in the diet of
man or animals, taking into account any related substances in the diet;
and (3) appropriate safety factors to relate the animal data to the
human risk evaluation. Section 409 also contains the Delaney clause,
which specifically provides that ``no additive shall be deemed safe if
it has been found, after tests which are appropriate for the evaluation
of the safety of food additives, to induce cancer when ingested by man
or animal.''
B. Regulatory Background
Following a series of petitions related to EPA's interpretation of
the Delaney clause, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit on July 8,
1992, ruled that the Delaney clause barred the establishment of a FAR
for pesticides which ``induce cancer'' even though the associated
cancer risk may be small (Les v. Reilly, 968 F.2d 985 (9th Cir.), cert.
denied, 113 S.Ct. 1361 (1993)). Shortly thereafter, the sole registrant
of triadimefon, Miles Inc., requested voluntary cancellation of the
triadimefon use on barley, which EPA granted on August 25, 1993 (58 FR
44823). The effective date of the cancellation of the use of
triadimefon on barley was November 23, 1993 and the registrant was
allowed to sell stocks labeled with the barley use up to 18 months
after the effective date.
On January 18, 1995 (59 FR 3602)(FRL-4910-8), EPA proposed to
revoke, among other things, the FAR for triadimefon on milled fractions
of barley (except flour) based on the Agency's determination that
triadimefon induces cancer in man or animals and that the FAR at issue
violates the Delaney clause. This notice supplements the proposed
revocation published in the January 18, 1995 proposal with respect to
triadimefon, and announces an alternative proposal to revoke the
triadimefon FAR and associated tolerances on the basis that the
tolerance is not needed because the use was cancelled in 1993. EPA may
finalize the revocation on either of the grounds proposed. Readers are
therefore encouraged to consult OPP Docket 300360 to obtain copies of
the comments received in EPA's earlier proposal.
II. Proposed Revocation
EPA is proposing to revoke the food additive regulation for
triadimefon (1-(4-chlorophenoxy)-3,3-dimethyl-1-(1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-
yl)-2-butanone) and its metabolite beta-(4-chlorophenoxy)-alpha-(1,1-
dimethylethyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol set to cover residues in or
on milled fractions of barley (except flour). This FAR, which is
codified at 40 CFR 185.800 is set at 4 ppm. EPA is also proposing to
revoke the tolerances for 1-(4-chlorophenoxy)-3,3-dimethyl-1(1H-1,2,4-
triazol-1-yl)-2-butanone and its metabolite containing chlorophenoxy
and triazole moieties (expressed as the fungicide) in or on barley
grain, green forage and straw. These tolerances are codified at 40 CFR
180.410 at 1 ppm.
EPA is proposing to revoke the above-stated tolerance and FAR since
the use of triadimefon on barley is no longer registered. As a matter
of policy, where a use is no longer registered, EPA revokes the
tolerance(s) and/or FAR's for any residues related to the deleted
use(s). Although EPA had proposed revocation of the FAR for triadimefon
on barley in a previous notice based on Delaney clause grounds, EPA has
noted that where there are gounds for revocation of a FAR unconnected
to safety, EPA generally would, as a policy matter, rely on those
grounds to revoke the FAR prior to revoking finally under the Delaney
clause (61 FR 11994, March 22, 1996) (FRL-5357-7) However, EPA has also
noted that the Agency is under no legal obligation to subordinate the
Delaney clause to other grounds in a revocation proceeding (61 FR 2377,
January 25, 1996)(FRL-4991-9).
In the case of triadimefon on barley, the registrant requested, and
EPA granted, voluntary cancellation. In the August 25, 1993 notice, the
registrant was given 18 months, or until May 23, 1995, to sell existing
stocks labelled with the use on barley. With voluntary cancellations,
EPA generally allows 2 years for legally-treated commodities to clear
channels of trade, thus EPA is proposing that the tolerance and FAR on
barley be revoked as of May 23, 1997.
III. Consideration of Comments
Any interested person may submit comments on this proposed action
on or before July 19, 1996 at the address given in the section above
entitled ``ADDRESSES.'' Before issuing a final revocation, EPA will
consider all relevant comments, including those on the proposed
effective date. Comments should be limited only to the tolerances and
food additive regulation subject to this proposed notice. After
consideration of comments, EPA will issue a final order determining
whether revocation of the tolerances and food additive regulation is
appropriate. Such order will be subject to objections pursuant to
section 409(f)(21 U.S.C. 348(f)). Failure to file an objection within
the appointed period will constitute waiver of the right to raise
issues presented in the order in future proceedings.
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [OPP-300431] (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does
not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
opp-D[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the Virginia address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the
beginning of this document.
IV. Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and any changes made during that review have been
documented in the public record. EPA does not expect any adverse
economic impacts from this proposed action since the use on barley was
cancelled in 1993 at the request of the registrant.
[[Page 31083]]
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
EPA has reviewed this proposed rule under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 [Pub. L. 96-354; 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.], and has determined that it will not have a significant economic
impact on any small businesses, governments or organizations.
Accordingly, I certify that this proposed rule does not require a
separate Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This order does not contain any information collection requirements
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and Executive Order 12875
This action does not impose any enforceable duty, or contain any
``unfunded mandates'' as described in Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), or require prior consultation as
specified by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993),
entitled Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, or special
consideration as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 180
Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities,
Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
40 CFR Part 185
Food additives, Pesticides and pests
Dated: June 11, 1996.
Lois Rossi,
Acting Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR parts 180 and 185 are proposed to be amended as
follows:
1. In part 180:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
a. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 2l U.S.C. 346a and 371.
Sec. 180.410 [Amended]
b. By removing from the table in Sec. 180.410 the entries for
``Barley; grain,'' ``Barley, green forage,'' and ``Barley, straw.''
2. In part 185:
PART 185--[AMENDED]
a. The authority citation for part 185 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 2l U.S.C. 346a and 348.
Sec. 185.800 [Amended]
b. By removing from the table in Sec. 185.800; the entry for
``Barley, milled fractions of barley (except flour).''
[FR Doc. 96-15479 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15478 Chlorothalonil; Pesticide Tolerance for Use in or on Asparagus
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31073-31075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15478]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 2E4042/P661; FRL-5374-6]
RIN 2070-AC18
Chlorothalonil; Pesticide Tolerance for Use in or on Asparagus
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to establish a tolerance for combined residues of
the fungicide chlorothalonil and its metabolite in or on the raw
agricultural commodity asparagus. The proposed regulation to establish
a maximum permissible level for residues of the fungicide was requested
in a petition submitted by the Interregional Research Project No. 4
(IR-4).
DATES: Comments, identified by the docket number [PP 2E4042/P661], must
be received on or before July 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Rm. 1132, CM #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
Comments and data may also be submitted to OPP by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an
[[Page 31074]]
ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of
encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on disks in
WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII file format. All comments and data
in electronic form must be identified by the docket number [PP 2E4042/
P661]. Electronic comments on this proposed rule may be filed online at
many Federal Depository Libraries. Additional information on electronic
submissions can be found in the ``SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION'' section
of this document.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI). CBI should not be
submitted through e-mail. Information marked as CBI will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2. A copy of the comment that does not contain CBI must be submitted
for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. All written
comments will be available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the
address given above, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Hoyt L. Jamerson,
Registration Division (7505W), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St. SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Office location and telephone number: Sixth Floor, Crystal Station #1,
2800 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 308-8783; e-
mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Interregional Research Project No. 4
(IR-4), New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, P.O. Box 231,
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, has submitted pesticide
petition (PP) 2E4042 to EPA on behalf of the Agricultural Experiment
Stations of Kentucky, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Virginia, and
Washington.
This petition requests that the Administrator, pursuant to section
408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C.
346a(e), amend 40 CFR 180.275 by establishing a tolerance for combined
residues of the fungicide chlorothalonil [tetrachloroisophthalonitrile]
and its metabolite, 4-hydroxy-2,5,6-trichloroisophthalonitrile, in or
on the raw agricultural commodity asparagus at 0.1 part per million
(ppm).
The scientific data submitted in the petition and other relevant
material have been evaluated. A discussion of the toxicological data
considered in support of the proposed tolerance for asparagus can be
found in a proposed rule (PP 0E3889, 2E4113, and 5E4538/P639) published
in the Federal Register of January 24, 1996 (61 FR 1884). The Federal
Register notice of January 24, 1996, also provides a discussion of the
basis for the EPA's classification of chlorothalonil and
hexachlorobenzene (HCB), a manufacturing impurity found in
chlorothalonil formulations, as probable human carcinogens (Group B2 of
EPA's classification system for carcinogens).
Dietary risk assessments were conducted using Reference Doses
(RfD), the applicable cancer potency factors to assess chronic exposure
and risk from chlorothalonil and HCB residues, and the Margin of
Exposure (MOE) to assess acute toxicity from chlorothalonil residues.
The Reference Dose (RfD) for chlorothalonil is established at 0.018
mg/kg of body weight (bwt)/day, based on a no-observed-effect-level
(NOEL) of 1.8 mg/kg/day from the 2-year feeding study in dogs, which
demonstrated as effects increased urinary bilirubin levels and kidney
vacuolated epithelium, and an uncertainty factor of 100. Available
information on anticipated residues and/or percent of crop treated was
incorporated into the analysis to estimate the Anticipated Residue
Contribution (ARC) from existing uses. The proposed tolerance level of
0.1 ppm and 100 percent crop treated were assumed to estimate dietary
exposure to residues of chlorothalonil from the proposed use on
asparagus. The ARC from existing uses and the proposed uses utilizes
less than 1 percent of the RfD for chlorothalonil for the U.S.
population and all population subgroups. EPA generally has no cause for
concern for exposures below 100 percent of the RfD.
The RfD for HCB is established at 0.0008 mg/kg bwt/day based on a
NOEL of 0.08 mg/kg of bwt/day and an uncertainty factor of 100. The
NOEL was taken from a 130 week feeding study in rats that showed
hepatic centrilobular basophilic chromogenesis. Since there are no
published tolerances for HCB, the ARC was generally calculated by
multiplying the anticipated residues for chlorothalonil by 0.05
percent, an adjustment based on comparisons of residue data for the two
compounds from controlled field trials. The ARC for HCB from existing
uses of chlorothalonil and the proposed use on asparagus utilizes less
than 1 percent of the RfD for the U.S. population and all population
subgroups.
The upper bound carcinogenic risks were calculated using the ARC
estimates for dietary exposure from existing uses and the proposed use
on asparagus, and Q*s (Q stars) of 0.00766 (mg/kg/day)-1 for
chlorothalonil and 1.02 (mg/kg/day)-1 for HCB. The upper bound
carcinogenic risk from existing and all pending uses of chlorothalonil
is estimated at 6.5 x 10-7, with the proposed use for asparagus
contributing 1.05 x 10-8 to the cancer risk assessment. The
upper bound carcinogenic risk for HCB is estimated at 3.2 x 10-7
from existing and all pending uses, with the proposed use for asparagus
contributing 1.2 x 10-7 to the cancer risk assessment. The
proposed use on asparagus would contribute negligible increases in the
total cancer risks from dietary exposure to residues of chlorothalonil
and HCB.
The Margin of Exposure (MOE) is a measure of how closely the high-
end acute dietary exposure comes to the NOEL from the toxicity endpoint
of concern. For chlorothalonil, the MOE was calculated as ratio of the
lowest-observed effect level (LOEL) of 175 mg/kg/day from the
subchronic study in rats. A NOEL was not established since an effect
(renal and gastric lesions) was observed at the single dose tested. An
uncertainty factor of 300 was used to calculate the MOE since there was
no available NOEL from the study. The acute dietary MOE for
chlorothalonil is calculated to be greater than 1,500 for the general
population and all population subgroups. Chlorothalonil poses minimal
acute dietary risk.
The nature of the residue in asparagus is adequately understood.
The parent compound and its metabolite (4-hydroxy- 2,5,6-
trichloroisophthalonitrile) are the regulated residues. An adequate
analytical method, is available for enforcement purposes. The method is
listed in the Pesticide Analytical Manual, Volume II (PAM II).
There is no reasonable expectation that secondary residues will
occur in milk, eggs, or meat, fat, or meat byproducts of livestock or
poultry as a result of this action; there are no livestock feed items
associated with asparagus.
There are presently no actions pending against the continued
registration of this chemical. The pesticide is considered useful for
the purpose for which the tolerance is sought.
Based on the information and data considered, the Agency has
determined that the tolerance established by amending 40 CFR part 180
would
[[Page 31075]]
protect the public health. Therefore, it is proposed that the tolerance
be established as set forth below.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, which contains any of the
ingredients listed herein, may request within 30 days after publication
of this notice in the Federal Register that this rulemaking proposal be
referred to an Advisory Committee in accordance with section 408(e) of
the FFDCA.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
proposed regulation. Comments must bear a notation indicating the
docket number [PP 2E4042/P661].
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [PP 2E4042/P661] (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does
not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the Virginia address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the
beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order (i.e.,
Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines ``significant'' as
those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially
affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal
governments or communities (also known as ``economically
significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement, grants, user
fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the
principles set forth in t his Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of
this Executive Order, EPA has determined that this rule is not
``significant'' and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
This action does not impose any enforceable duty, or contain any
``unfunded mandates'' as described in Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), or require prior consultation as
specified by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993),
entitled Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, or special
consideration as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994).
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator has determined that regulations
establishing new tolerances or raising tolerance levels or establishing
exemptions from tolerance requirements do not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A
certification statement explaing the factual basis for this
determination was published in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46
FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 4, 1996.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be amended as
follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. In Sec. 180.275, the table in paragraph (a) is amended by adding
alphabetically the raw agricultural commodity asparagus, to read as
follows:
Sec. 180.275 Chlorothalonil; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Asparagus.................................................. 0.10
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-15478 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15472 Radio Broadcasting Services; Tehachapi, CA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15472]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-129; RM-8814]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Tehachapi, CA
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making
filed on behalf of Tehachapi Broadcasting requesting the allotment of
Channel 261A to Tehachapi, California, as that community's second local
FM service. Coordinates used for Channel 261A at Tehachapi are 35-13-04
and 118-20-37. Tehachapi is located within 320 kilometers (199 miles)
of the Mexico border, and therefore, the Commission must obtain
concurrence of the Mexican government to this proposal.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before August 5, 1996, and reply
comments on or before August 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC
20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties
should serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: Dan J. Alpert, Esq.,
Law Office of Dan J. Alpert, 2120 N. 21st Rd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA
22201.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)
418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-129, adopted June 7,
1996, and released June 14, 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 contractors, International
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 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.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-15472 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15471 Radio Broadcasting Services; Kula, HI
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31083-31084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15471]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-127; RM-8805]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Kula, HI
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making
filed by Sonia A. Humphrey seeking the allotment of FM Channel 244A to
Kula, Hawaii, as that locality's first local aural transmission
service. Petitioner is requested to provide additional information to
establish Kula's status as a community for allotment purposes.
Coordinates for this proposal are 20-46-00 and 156-20-00.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before July 29, 1996, and reply
comments on or before August 13, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC
20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties
should serve the petitioner, as follows: Sonia A. Humphrey, c/o Magic
City Media, Inc., 1912 Capitol Avenue, Suite 300, Cheyenne, WY 82001.
[[Page 31084]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)
418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-127, adopted May 24,
1996, and released June 7, 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 contractors, International
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 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.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-15471 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15470 Radio Broadcasting Services; Hilton, NY
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15470]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-125; RM-8807]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Hilton, NY
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Alan
Bishop d/b/a Hilton Broadcasting seeking the allotment of Channel 238A
to Hilton, NY, as the community's first local aural transmission
service. Channel 238A can be allotted to Hilton in compliance with the
Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site
restriction of 1.9 kilometer (1.2 miles) north, at coordinates 43-18-15
NL; 77-47-56 WL, to avoid a short-spacing to Station WNVE, Channel
236B, South Bristol Township, NY. Hilton is located within 320
kilometers (200 miles) of the U.S.-Canadian border. Further, the
allotment will result in a short-spacing to Stations CKDS-FM, Channel
237C1, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and CJBC1F, Channel 238C1,
Belleville, Ontario, Canada. However, petitioner states that it will
apply for and operate the station with a directional antenna so as to
avoid causing interference over Canadian land area. Therefore, we will
request Canadian concurrence in the allotment as a specially negotiated
allotment.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before July 29, 1996, and reply
comments on or before August 13, 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: Alan
SW. Bishop, d/b/a Hilton Broadcasting, 679 Furman Road, Fairport, New
York 14450 (Petitioner).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-125, adopted May 24,
1996, and released June 7, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC 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, International
Transcription Services, 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.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-15470 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15469 Radio Broadcasting Services; El Dorado, AR
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31084-31085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15469]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-131; RM-8810]
Radio Broadcasting Services; El Dorado, AR
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making
filed by Arkansas Radio Broadcasters requesting the allotment of
Channel 268A to El Dorado, Arkansas, as that community's fifth local FM
transmission service. Coordinates used for Channel 268A at El Dorado,
Arkansas, are 33-10-27 and 92-38-55.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before August 5, 1996, and reply
comments on or before August 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC
20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties
should serve the petitioner, as follows: Arkansas Radio Broadcasters,
Attn: Carol B. Ingram, President, P. O. Box 73, Batesville, MS 38606.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)
418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-131, adopted June 7,
1996, and released June 14, 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 contractors, International
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 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
[[Page 31085]]
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.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-15469 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15468 Radio Broadcasting Services; Grenada, MS
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15468]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No.96-130, RM-8818]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Grenada, MS
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition by Darby Radio
Enterprises proposing the allotment of Channel 267A at Grenada,
Mississippi, as an additional FM service. Channel 267A can be allotted
to Grenada in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance
separation requirements with a site restriction of 9.2 kilometers (5.7
miles) west to avoid short-spacing conflicts with the licensed site of
Station WJDQ(FM), Channel 267C1, Meridian, Mississippi, and to the
proposal (FM-7437) to add Channel 269A at Coffeeville, Mississippi. The
coordinates for Channel 267A at Grenada are 33-47-48 and 89-54-29.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before August 5, 1996, and reply
comments on or before August 20, 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: Darby
Radio Enterprises, P.O. Box 9, Charleston, Mississippi 38921
(petitioner).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.96-130, adopted June 7,
1996, and released June 14, 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.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-15468 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15426 Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Clinton, OK
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31064-31065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15426]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ASW-12]
Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Clinton, OK
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to revise the Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above ground level (AGL) at Clinton, OK. A new
Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedure
(SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 35 at Clinton Municipal Airport has made this
proposal necessary. The intended effect of this proposal is to provide
adequate controlled airspace for aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY
35 at Clinton, OK.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to Manager,
Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation
Administration, Southwest Region, Docket No. 96-ASW-12, Fort Worth, TX
76193-0530.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601
Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX, between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may
also be examined during normal business hours at the Operations Branch,
Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald J. Day, Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal
Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530;
telephone: (817) 222-5593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory
[[Page 31065]]
decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the
overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-
related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify the
airspace docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address
listed under the caption Addresses. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit, with
those comments, a self-addressed, stamped, postcard containing the
following statement: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-ASW-12.'' The
postcard will be date and time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in the light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Federal
Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort
Worth, TX, both before and after the closing date for comments. A
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Operations Branch, Air Traffic
Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Fort
Worth, TX 76193-0530. Communications must identify the notice number of
this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for
future NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A
that describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to revise the Class E airspace,
controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL, at Clinton
Municipal Airport, Clinton, OK. A new GPS SIAP to RWY 35 has made this
proposal necessary. The intended effect of this proposal is to provide
adequate Class E airspace for aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to Rwy 35
at Clinton, OK.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Designated Class E airspace areas extending upward
from 700 feet or more above ground level are published in Paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C, dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be
published subsequently in the order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations that need frequent and
routine amendments to keep them operationally current. It, therefore--
(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not
warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated
impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only
affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that
this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASW OK E5 Clinton Municipal Airport, OK.
Clinton Municipal Airport, OK.
(Lat. 35 deg.32'18'' N., long. 98 deg.55'58'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Clinton Municipal Airport and within 4
miles each side of the 179 deg. bearing from the Clinton Municipal
Airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 15.8 miles south of
the airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Fort Worth, TX on June 11, 1996.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-15426 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15425 Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Pauls Valley, OK
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31069-31070]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15425]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ASW-09]
Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Pauls Valley, OK
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to revise the Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above ground level (AGL) at Pauls Valley, OK. A
new Global
[[Page 31070]]
Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP)
to Runway (RWY) 35 and an amended Nondirectional Radio Beacon (NDB)
SIAP to RWY 35 at Pauls Valley Municipal Airport has made this proposal
necessary. The intended effect of this proposal is to provide adequate
controlled airspace for aircraft executing the GPS and NDB SIAP to RWY
35 at Pauls Valley, OK.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to Manager,
Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation
Administration, Southwest Region, Docket No. 96-ASW-09, Fort Worth, TX
76193-0530.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601
Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX, between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may
also be examined during normal business hours at the Operations Branch,
Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald J. Day, Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal
Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530;
telephone: (817) 222-5593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed under the caption
ADDRESSES. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their
comments on this notice must submit, with those comments, a self-
addressed, stamped, postcard containing the following statement:
``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-ASW-09.'' The postcard will be
date and time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications
received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be
considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal
contained in this notice may be changed in the light of comments
received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in
the Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation
Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth,
TX, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report
summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Operations Branch, Air Traffic
Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Fort
Worth, TX 76193-0530. Communications must identify the notice number of
this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for
future NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A
that describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to revise the Class E airspace,
controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL, at Pauls Valley
Municipal Airport, Pauls Valley, OK. A new GPS and an amended NDB
SIAP's to RWY 35 have made this proposal necessary. The intended effect
of this proposal is to provide adequate Class E airspace for aircraft
executing the GPS and NDB SIAP to Rwy 35 at Pauls Valley, OK.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Designated Class E airspace areas extending upward
from 700 feet or more above ground level are published in Paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C, dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be
published subsequently in the order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations that need frequent and
routine amendments to keep them operationally current. It, therefore--
(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not
warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated
impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only
affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that
this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 17 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASW OK E5 Pauls Valley, OK [Revised]
Pauls Valley Municipal Airport, OK
(Lat. 34 deg.42'45'' N., long. 97 deg.13'31'' W.)
Pauls Valley NBD
(Lat. 34 deg.42'55'' N., long. 97 deg.13'44'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Pauls Valley Municipal Airport and
within 2.6 miles each side of the 169 deg. bearing from the Pauls
Valley NDB extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 7.6 miles south of
the airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Fort Worth, TX on June 11, 1996.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-15425 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15424 Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Paragould, AR
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31065-31066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15424]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ASW-10]
Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Paragould, AR
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to revise the Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above ground level (AGL) at Paragould, AR. A new
Nondirectional Radio Beacon (NDB) Standard Instrument Approach
Procedure (SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 04 at Kirk Field has made this
proposal necessary. The intended effect of this proposal is to provide
adequate controlled airspace for aircraft executing the NDB SIAP to RWY
04 at Paragould, AR.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to Manager,
Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation
Administration, Southwest Region, Docket No. 96-ASW-10, Fort Worth, TX
76193-0530.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601
Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX, between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may
also be examined during normal business hours at the Operations Branch,
Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald J. Day, Operations Branch,
Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Fort Worth, TX
76193-0530; telephone (817) 222-5593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions
[[Page 31066]]
presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory
decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the
overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-
related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify the
airspace docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address
listed under the caption addresses. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit, with
those comments, a self-addressed, stamped, postcard containing the
following statement: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-ASW-10.'' The
postcard will be date and time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in the light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Federal
Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort
Worth, TX, both before and after the closing date for comments. A
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Operations Branch, Air Traffic
Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Fort
Worth, TX 76193-0530. Communications must identify the notice number of
this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for
future NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A
that describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to revise the Class E airspace,
controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL at Kirk Field,
Paragould, AR. A new NDB SIAP to RWY 04 has made this proposal
necessary. The intended effect of this proposal is to provide adequate
Class E airspace for aircraft executing the NDB SIAP to RWY 04 at
Paragould, AR.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Designated Class E airspace areas extending upward
from 700 feet or more above ground level are published in Paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C, dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be
published subsequently in the order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations that need frequent and
routine amendments to keep them operationally current. It, therefore--
(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not
warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated
impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only
affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that
this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASW AR E5 Paragould, AR [Revised]
Kirk Field, AR
(Lat. 36 deg.03'49'' N., long. 90 deg.30'36'' N.)
Paragould NDB
(Lat. 36 deg.03'46'' N., long. 90 deg.30'40'' N.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Kirk Field, and within 2.5-miles each
side of the 038 deg. bearing to the Paragould NDB extending from the
6.4-mile radius to 9.5-miles southwest of the airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Fort Worth, TX on June 11, 1996.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-15424 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15423 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace: Sonora Canyon Ranch Airport, TX
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31066-31067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15423]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ASW-05]
Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace: Sonora Canyon Ranch
Airport, TX
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to establish Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above ground level (AGL) at Canyon Ranch Airport,
Sonora, TX. The development of a Very High Frequency Omnidirectional
Range (VOR)/Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) standard instrument
approach procedure (SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 32 has made this proposal
necessary. The intended effect of this proposal is to provide adequate
controlled airspace for aircraft executing the VOR/DME SIAP to RWY 32
at Canyon Ranch Airport, Sonora, Texas.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to Manager,
Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation
Administration, Southwest Region, Docket No. 96-ASW-05, Fort Worth, TX
76193-0530.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601
Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX, between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be
examined during normal business hours at the Operations Branch, Air
Traffic Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region,
2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald J. Day, Operations Branch,
Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Fort Worth, TX
76193-0530; telephone: (817) 222-5593.
[[Page 31067]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and enrgy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed under the caption
ADDRESSES. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their
comments on this notice must submit, with those comments, a self-
addressed, stamped, postcard containing the following statement:
``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-ASW-05.'' The postcard will be
date and time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications
received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be
considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal
contained in this notice may be changed in the light of comments
received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in
the Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation
Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth,
TX, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report
summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Operations Branch, Air Traffic
Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Fort
Worth, TX 76193-0530. Communications must identify the notice number of
this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for
future NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A
that describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Class E airspace,
controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL, at Canyon Ranch
Airport, Sonora, TX. The development of a VOR/DME SIAP to RWY 32 has
made this proposal necessary. Designated airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the ground is now Class E airspace. The intended effect
of this proposal is to provide adequate Class E airspace for aircraft
executing the VOR/DME SIAP to RWY 32 at Canyon Ranch Airport, Sonora,
TX. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83.
Designated Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or
more above ground level are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations that need frequent and
routine amendments to keep them operationally current. It, therefore--
(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not
warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated
impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only
affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that
this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASW TX E5 Sonora Canyon Ranch, TX [New]
Sonora, Canyon Ranch Airport, TX
(Lat. 30 deg.18'06'' N., long. 100 deg.28'19'' W.)
Rocksprings VOR
(Lat. 30 deg.00'53'' N., long. 100 deg.17'59'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Canyon Ranch Airport, and within 1.8
miles each side of the 333 deg. bearing from the Rocksprings VOR
extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 7.6 miles southeast of the
airport, excluding that airspace which overlies the Rocksprings Four
Square Ranch Airport Class E area.
* * * * *
Issued in Fort Worth, TX on June 11, 1996.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-15423 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15422 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace: Panhandle, TX
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31067-31068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15422]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ASW-06]
Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace: Panhandle, TX
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposed to establish Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above ground level (AGL) at Panhandle-Carson
County Airport, Panhandle, TX. The development of a Global Positioning
System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) to Runway
(RWY) 35 has made this proposal necessary. The intended effect of this
proposal is to provide adequate controlled airspace for aircraft
executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 35 at Panhandle-Carson County Airport,
Panhandle, TX.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to Manager,
Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation
Administration, Southwest Region, Docket No. 96-ASW-06, Fort Worth, TX
76193-0530. The official docket may be examined in the Office of the
Assistant Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Forth Worth, TX, between 9:00 AM and
3:00 PM, Monday
[[Page 31068]]
through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be
examined during normal business hours at the Operations Branch, Air
Traffic Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region,
2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald J. Day, Operations Branch,
Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Forth Worth, TX
76193-0530; telephone: (817) 222-5593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed under the caption
ADDRESSES. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their
comments on this notice must submit, with those comments, a self-
addressed, stamped, postcard containing the following statement:
``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-ASW-06.'' The postcard will be
date and time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications
received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be
considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal
contained in this notice may be changed in the light of comments
received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in
the Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation
Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth,
TX, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report
summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Operations Branch, Air Traffic
Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Fort
Worth, TX 76193-0530. Communications must identify the notice number of
this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for
future NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A
that describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Class E airspace,
controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL at Panhandle-
Carson County Airport, Panhandle, TX. The development of a GPS SIAP to
RWY 35 has made this proposal necessary. Designated airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the ground is now Class E airspace. The
intended effect of this proposal is to provide adequate Class E
airspace for aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 35 at Panhandle-
Carson County Airport, Panhandle, TX. The coordinates for this airspace
docket are based on North American Datum 83.
Designated Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or
more above ground level are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations that need frequent and
routine amendments to keep them operationally current. It, therefore--
(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not
warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated
impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only
affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that
this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASW TX E5 Panhandle, TX [New]
Panhandle, Panhandle-Carson County Airport, TX
(Lat. 35 deg.21'42'' N., long. 101 deg.21'54'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Panhandle-Carson County Airport,
excluding that airspace which overlies the Amarillo, TX Class E
area.
* * * * *
Issued in Fort Worth, TX on June 11, 1996.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-15422 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15421 Proposed Establishment of Class D Airspace; McKinney, TX
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31063-31064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15421]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ASW-15]
Proposed Establishment of Class D Airspace; McKinney, TX
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to establish Class D airspace extending
upward from surface to and including 2,900 feet mean sea level (MSL) at
McKinney, TX. An air traffic control tower has begun providing air
traffic control services for pilots operating at McKinney Municipal
Airport. The intended effect of this proposal is to provide adequate
controlled airspace at McKinney Municipal Airport, McKinney, TX.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to Manager,
Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation
Administration, Southwest Region, Docket No. 96-ASW-15, Fort Worth, TX
76193-0530.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601
Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX, between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may
also be examined during normal business hours at the Operations Branch,
Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald J. Day, Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal
Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530;
telephone: (817) 222-5593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address
[[Page 31064]]
listed under the caption ADDRESSES. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit, with
those comments, a self-addressed, stamped, postcard containing the
following statement: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-ASW-15.'' The
postcard will be date and time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in the light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Federal
Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort
Worth, TX, both before and after the closing date for comments. A
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Operations Branch, Air Traffic
Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Fort
Worth, TX 76193-0530. Communications must identify the notice number of
this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for
further NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-
2A that describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Class D airspace,
controlled airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,900 feet MSL, at McKinney Municipal Airport, McKinney, TX. An air
traffic control tower at the airport provides air traffic control
services for aircraft operating at the airport. The intended effect of
this proposal is to provide adequate Class D airspace at McKinney
Municipal Airport, McKinney, TX.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Designated Class D airspace areas are published in
Paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9C, dated August 17, 1995, and
effective September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace designation listed in this document
would be published subsequently in the order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations that need frequent and
routine amendments to keep them operationally current. It, therefore--
(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not
warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated
impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only
affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that
this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace areas.
* * * * *
ASW TX D McKinney, TX [New]
McKinney, McKinney Municipal Airport, TX
(Lat. 33 deg.10'50'' N., long. 096 deg.35'26'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,900 feet MSL within a 4.0-mile radius of McKinney Municipal
Airport. This Class D airspace is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *
Issued in Fort Worth, TX on June 11, 1996.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manger, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-15421 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15420 Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace: Ardmore, OK
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31068-31069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15420]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ASW-07]
Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace: Ardmore, OK
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to revise Class E airspace extending
upward from the surface at Ardmore Municipal Airport, Ardmore, OK. The
need to extend the Class E airspace to encompass the Very High
Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Standard Instrument Approach
Procedure (SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 04 has made this proposal necessary.
The intended effect of this proposal is to provide adequate controlled
airspace for aircraft executing the VOR SIAP to RWY 04 at Ardmore
Municipal Airport, Ardmore, OK.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to Manager,
Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division,
[[Page 31069]]
Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Docket No. 96-ASW-
07, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 2601
Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX, between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be
examined during normal business hours at the Operations Branch, Air
Traffic Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region,
2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald J. Day, Operations Branch, Federal Aviation Administration,
Southwest Region, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530; telephone: (817) 222-5593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed under the caption
ADDRESSES. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their
comments on this notice must submit, with those comments, a self-
addressed, stamped, postcard containing the following statement:
``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-ASW-07.'' The postcard will be
date and time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications
received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be
considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal
contained in this notice may be changed in the light of comments
received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in
the Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation
Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth,
TX, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report
summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRM's
And person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Operations Branch, Air Traffic
Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Fort
Worth, TX 76193-0530. Communications must identify the notice number of
this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for
future NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A
that describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to revise Class E airspace,
controlled airspace extending upward from the surface at Ardmore
Municipal Airport, Ardmore, OK. The need to extend the Class E airspace
to encompass the current VOR SIAP to RWY 04 has made this proposal
necessary. Designated airspace extending upward from surface is now
Class E airspace, which extends from the Class D surface airspace. The
intended effect of this proposal is to provide adequate Class E surface
airspace for aircraft executing the VOR SIAP to RWY 04 at Ardmore
Municipal Airport, Ardmore, OK. The coordinates for this airspace
docket are based on North American Datum 83.
Designated Class E airspace areas extending upward from the surface
as an extension of Class D airspace are published in Paragraph 6004 of
FAA Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document would be published
subsequently in the order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations that need frequent and
routine amendments to keep them operationally current. It, therefore--
(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not
warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated
impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only
affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that
this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6004 Class E airspace areas designated as an extension
to a Class D or Class E surface area.
* * * * *
ASW OK E4 Ardmore, OK [Revised]
Ardmore, Ardmore Municipal Airport
(lat. 34 deg.18'12'' N., long. 097 deg.01'02'' W.)
Ardmore VORTAC
(lat. 34 deg.12'42'' N., long. 097 deg.10'06'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.3 miles
each side of the 056 deg. radial of the Ardmore VORTAC extending
from the 4.2-mile radius of airport to 8.5 mile southwest of the
airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airman. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *
Issued in Fort Worth, TX on June 11, 1996.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-15420 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15346 Licensing and Manning for Officers of Towing Vessels
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31332-31347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15346]
[[Page 31331]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Coast Guard
_______________________________________________________________________
46 CFR Parts 10 and 15
Licensing and Manning for Officers of Towing Vessels; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 19, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 31332]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
46 CFR Parts 10 and 15
[CGD 94-055]
RIN 2115-AF23
Licensing and Manning for Officers of Towing Vessels
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to revise the requirements for
licensing those mariners that operate towing vessels, uninspected as
well as inspected. This proposed rule would create new licenses with
levels of qualification and with enhanced training and operating
experience, including practical demonstrations of skill; further, it
would ensure that all towing vessels are manned by officers holding
licenses specifically authorizing their service. It is based on the
investigation of an allision of a towing vessel and its barges with a
railroad bridge, near Mobile, Alabama, in September 1993, which caused
47 deaths.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine
Safety Council (G-LRA/3406) [CGD 94-055], U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, or may
be delivered to room 3406 at the same address between 8 a.m. and 3
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is (202) 267-1477. Comments on collection-of-information
requirements must be mailed also to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.
The Executive Secretary maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments will become part of this docket and will be
available for inspection or copying at room 3406, U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
LCDR Don Darcy, Operating and Environmental Standards Division, (202)
267-0221.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments.
Persons submitting comments should include their names and addresses,
identify this rulemaking [CGD 94-055] and the specific section of this
proposal to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. Please submit two copies of all comments and attachments in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. Persons wanting acknowledgment of
receipt of comments should enclose stamped, self-addressed postcards or
envelopes.
The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the
comment period. It may change this proposal in view of the comments.
A public meeting was held on April 4, 1994, at Coast Guard
Headquarters. Afterwards, the Coast Guard received numerous letters
from active mariners requesting a copy of this proposed rule and
seeking an opportunity to comment. The Coast Guard reached each
identifiable group and provided it an opportunity to forward comments
to the docket. It will mail a copy of this rule to every interested
party. Persons may request additional public meetings by writing to the
Marine Safety Council at the address under addresses. The request
should include the reasons why a public meeting would be beneficial. If
it determines that the opportunity for oral presentations will aid this
rulemaking, the Coast Guard will hold a public meeting at a time and
place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
This proposed rule is necessary as part of a comprehensive
initiative by the Coast Guard to improve navigational safety for towing
vessels. It follows a report directed by the Secretary of
Transportation, entitled Review of Marine Safety Issues Related to
Uninspected Towing Vessels (hereafter Review), which identified
improvements in licensing, training, and qualifications of operators of
uninspected towing vessels (OUTVs) that may be necessary to achieve
this goal.
The Secretary of Transportation initiated the Review after the
collision, in September 1993, of a towing vessel and its barges with a
railroad bridge near Mobile, Alabama (hereafter Amtrak casualty). This
casualty was closely followed by several others involving towing
vessels. Each emphasized the urgency of examining the rules for the
licensing of all operators of towing vessels. In general, the Review
and a previous study, also by the Coast Guard, entitled Licensing 2000
and Beyond (hereafter Licensing 2000), concluded that the requirements
for licensing all operators of towing vessels are outdated and need
improvement.
The Review examined marine-casualty statistics for towing vessels
over a 12-year period (1980-1991). Of 12,971 marine casualties covered,
at least 7,664, or around 60 percent, were directly attributable to
personnel error. Over the last several years, more research has been
conducted on the effects of human factors on marine casualties. Much of
it concludes that improvements in the licensing, training, and
qualifications of personnel might be accomplished to reduce the number
of casualties.
In all, the Review contained 19 recommendations, on licensing OUTVs
and other matters, including reporting marine casualties and hazardous
conditions; bridge-fendering systems and navigational lighting;
adequacy of navigational equipment for uninspected towing vessels; and
adequacy of the Aids to Navigation System for marking the approaches to
bridges over navigable waterways.
In response to the Review, on March 2, 1994, the Coast Guard
published a notice of public meeting and availability of study (59 FR
10031) that announced the availability of the Review, and scheduled a
meeting to seek public comment on the recommendations made in it.
The public meeting was held on April 4, 1994. It was well attended
by the public, representing a wide range of towing interests. In
response, the Coast Guard received a total of 23 written comments
beyond free discussion at the meeting itself. These comments are
summarized in the section entitled Discussion of Proposed Rule.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) also conducted an
investigation following the Amtrak casualty. The findings of the NTSB
investigation identified one of the probable causes of the casualty as
the Coast Guard's failure to establish higher standards for the
licensing of inland operators of towing vessels. This proposed rule
aims to update the licensing, training, and qualifications of personnel
on towing vessels in order to reduce similar vessel casualties
attributable to human factors. Specifically, it addresses (1) Levels of
licenses; (2) restrictions of licenses by horsepower; (3) practical
demonstrations of skills; and (4) responsibility of industry.
In addition, this proposed rule has taken into account nine of the
recommendations from the Review that
[[Page 31333]]
affect licensing: (1) The creation of levels of licenses; (2) a
requirement of practical demonstration, by simulator or equivalent, for
upgrade of license; (3) a requirement of practical demonstration, by
simulator or equivalent, for increase in scope of license; (4) a
requirement of practical demonstration, by simulator or equivalent, for
renewal of license; (5) a limitation, to smaller vessels, of the
license for second-class operator of uninspected towing vessels; (6) a
requirement of experience on the Western rivers to receive an
endorsement for them; (7) the assurance that any new license meets
international standards; (8) provisions for crossover or equivalence
for masters and mates of vessels of between 500 and 1,600 gross tons;
and (9) emphasis on responsibility of owners of towing vessels to
employ qualified, experienced personnel as operators in charge (or
masters) of their vessels.
This rulemaking arises largely from a cooperative effort between
the Coast Guard and the towing industry. It reflects oral comments made
at the public meeting held on April 4, 1994; written comments in
response to this meeting; and written comments in response to the
Review. Further, the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee
(MERPAC) created a working group to generally address the towing-safety
initiatives. The Coast Guard considered the Report of the MERPAC
Working Group, dated June 10, 1994, even before the drafting of this
proposed rule. Further still, the Towing Safety Advisory Committee
(TSAC) created a working group to specifically address licensing
issues. The Coast Guard also considered the Report of the TSAC Working
Group on Licensing, dated December 5, 1994 (hereafter TSAC Report),
during the drafting of this rule. The TSAC Report incorporates the
results of numerous working-group meetings, independent research, and
analysis of current industry practices.
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW)
STCW sets qualifications for masters, officers, and watchkeeping
personnel on seagoing merchant ships. It was adopted in 1978 and it
entered into force in 1984. The U.S. became a party in 1991. STCW
applies to mariners serving on board seagoing vessels (i.e., vessels,
including towing vessels, that operate beyond the boundary line as
defined in 46 CFR part 7). Therefore, in addition to the requirements
set forth in this rulemaking, mariners serving on seagoing towing
vessels must meet the training, certification and watchkeeping
requirements in STCW.
On July 7, 1995, a Conference of Parties to STCW adopted a
comprehensive package of Amendments to STCW. The amendments will enter
into force on February 1, 1997. They will affect virtually all phases
of the system used in the U.S. to train, test, evaluate, license,
certify, and document merchant mariners for service on seagoing
vessels. On March 26, 1996, the Coast Guard published a notice of
proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register [CGD 95-062] (61 FR 13284),
concerning changes to the U.S. licensing and documentation system to
conform to STCW as recently amended.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
1. License for master, mate (pilot), or apprentice mate (steersman)
of towing vessels. Licenses for operators of uninspected towing vessels
and second-class operators of uninspected towing vessels would no
longer be issued under this proposed rule. These two licenses would be
replaced with a graduated series of masters' and mates' licenses
limited to towing vessels in general. Holders of current licenses would
be grandfathered into licenses commensurate with their experience.
These new licenses would be issued at the time of routine renewal.
The TSAC Report recommends a move to a series of licenses because
of the increased requirements for licensing of other kinds since the
inception of the OUTV license, along with increased requirements for
reporting casualties and for radar training. With all of these
increased requirements, and with broad acceptance of practical
demonstrations that are now embodied in this proposed rule, TSAC
concluded that OUTV licenses should be upgraded to licenses of
officers: masters and mates by whatever names.
Following the TSAC Report, concern was voiced on the part of many
inland-towing companies and inland mariners alike that, through the
history of the inland-towing industry, the term ``mate'' has never
referred to a licensed officer. The term, in this industry, refers to
the chief unlicensed deck person, while the term ``pilot'' refers to
the licensed person that operates the vessel. To recognize and preserve
regional features of the current inland system and reduce any undue
confusion, this proposed rule would use a synonymous term, ``pilot of
towing vessels''. The document identified by this term would be issued
instead of another, called ``mate of towing vessels,'' for all inland
routes. This term in no way implies either the taking or passing of the
first-class pilotage examination or the associated level of
proficiency; it merely reflects the historical application of titles in
the inland industry. Likewise, the term ``apprentice mate'' would need
to be further clarified by attaching ``steersman'' to it for the same
reason. Therefore, this proposed rule would use another, synonymous
term, ``steersman of towing vessels,'' for all inland routes.
Nine written comments concurred with the scheme proposed here, as
articulated by Recommendation (1) of the Review. No comments disagreed
with a new licensing structure that included additional levels. Many
comments indicated that the authority to operate towing vessels should
be a restricted authority rather than a lesser-included, low-level
authority, covered by a license for a master of between 200 and 1,600
gross tons.
Three active mariners, currently working on the inland routes as
OUTVs, felt that the best way to achieve the desired level of safety
would be to eliminate the OUTV license and require in its place a
first-class pilot's license; three towing-industry managers stated that
a requirement for this license would be too restrictive, and suggested
that a master's license with a route restriction could provide the
necessary operational flexibility for safe navigation. The Coast Guard
acknowledges that many towing companies operate over large areas and
might be constrained by a requirement that every master hold a first-
class pilot's license; however, the Coast Guard also recognizes that
the highest level of a mariner's geographical knowledge would be
achieved with a requirement for this license. The Coast Guard concludes
that the addition of a practical demonstration of skill during
evaluation along with an upgrade to master or mate (pilot) of towing
vessels would effectively raise the safety level of towing without
overburdening the industry or its mariners.
The Coast Guard considered just adding levels to the existing OUTV
license, for master of OUTV and mate of OUTV. The TSAC working group
considered it, too. But the Coast Guard and TSAC generally agreed that
a structure comprising a sequence of apprentice mate (or steersman),
mate (or pilot), and master, and specifically limited to towing
vessels, was more appropriate for consistency with the U.S. licensing
program as a whole.
The Coast Guard supports two parallel hierarchies of licenses,
separated by horsepower, for the following reasons: (1) The two would
create levels of licenses that did not exist with the OUTV license,
providing
[[Page 31334]]
the less-experienced mariner, while qualified to stand the watch, the
tutelage of a more experienced hand, a master; (2) the two would serve
to signify the greater authority, and responsibility, of mariners in
charge of towing vessels, deemed necessary because of the ever-
increasing size of flotillas moved on the inland routes every day and
proved necessary by the Amtrak casualty; and (3) the two would provide
continuity with licenses issued for Oceans and Great Lakes.
Furthermore, a variation of the hierarchy for 3,000 horsepower or
less--limited master, limited mate (pilot), and limited apprentice mate
(steersman) licenses--would also be issued for routes restricted by the
local Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, instead of the current
limited OUTV license.
During the development of this possible change, some questions have
arisen regarding the applicability of the two-watch system. The
authority for issuance of licenses for masters and mates (pilots) of
towing vessels would continue to be 46 U.S.C. 7101 and 8904. The latter
statute does not prescribe the types of licenses suitable for
uninspected towing vessels; it only states that a towing vessel must be
operated by an individual licensed by the Secretary to operate that
type of vessel in the particular geographic area, under prescribed
rules. The Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard has already determined that
any towing vessel under 200 gross tons, operating at sea under a
license structure created pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 8904, is permitted to
operate under a two-watch system. This issue receives some discussion
in 46 CFR 15.705(d).
In the past, every operator was responsible for the operation of
the towing vessel during his or her watch. However, business practices
dictated that one operator--the senior one, the OUTV--be designated as
the captain, who could be held responsible to the company as a
traditional master. Nevertheless, the office of the Chief
Administrative Law Judge reports that, until the Amtrak casualty, the
Coast Guard had not processed a case of suspension or revocation
against the OUTV unless, when a casualty occurred, he or she was on
watch. The Coast Guard concludes that the master's duties, and the
overall responsibility associated with overseeing the safety of the
vessel, are indivisible. Because a mariner in command of a towing
vessel under 46 U.S.C. 8904 may not work (even voluntarily) for more
than 12 hours in a consecutive 24-hour period except in an emergency,
the Coast Guard invites comments to the docket on whether this work-
hour limit would place any practical difficulty on an individual who
serves as a master or mate (pilot) on a towing vessel.
The new licensing scheme would no longer treat towing as a lesser-
included activity allowed by a master's license. Under the proposed
rule, every towing vessel would have to be under the command of a
mariner licensed specifically for towing vessels. Any mariner with the
proper training and skills, as verified through sea service,
examination, and a practical demonstration of proficiency, could get
appropriate endorsements added to his or her license.
The proposed rule also introduces a new license: apprentice mate
(steersman) of towing vessels. TSAC expressed concern that the current
program of licensing technically allows a mariner who meets sea-time
requirements and passes a written test to take control of a vessel that
he or she may not possess the knowledge, expertise, or experience to
operate. TSAC, therefore, strongly endorsed the concept of an
apprentice mate (steersman). The purpose was to validate a mariner's
competence before giving the mariner the authority to operate a towing
vessel. Other considerations included the need to know the rules of the
road before actually steering a towing vessel; the necessity under STCW
to establish a procedure to document a trainee's progress in
watchkeeping; and the need to set a time limit for completion of a
training program. The Coast Guard agrees, and proposes a license for an
``apprentice mate (steersman) of towing vessels''.
On inland routes, to reduce confusion and maintain continuity with
currently used terms, the term ``steersman'' would apply instead of the
term ``apprentice mate''. These two terms would be synonymous, each
restricted by route endorsement.
The prerequisites for the license as apprentice mate (steersman)
would comprise sea service; the successful completion of a Coast Guard
examination; a physical exam; a drug test; and a character evaluation.
Even with the license, however, the mariner would be authorized only to
train in the wheelhouse under the continuous, direct supervision and
observation of a mariner licensed as master or mate (pilot) of towing
vessels.
This rulemaking and several other recent ones have caused concern
for the assistance-towing industry. Its vessels assist disabled vessels
for consideration and are licensed under 46 U.S.C. 8904(b). Many of its
vessels are greater than 8 meters (about 26 feet) in length and are
around 500 horsepower. Although this proposed rule would not apply to
vessels that engage solely in assistance towing, it would affect this
industry because many vessels that engage in assistance towing also
engage in commercial towing. The Coast Guard invites comment on whether
this rule should apply to assistance-towing vessels of limited size and
horsepower.
2. Requirements for renewal of licenses. One of the recommendations
from the Review suggested that applicants for renewals of OUTV licenses
be required to demonstrate their skills on a simulator. The Coast Guard
finds merit in requiring a demonstration of proficiency, but for
reasons discussed later in this preamble it would not make the use of a
simulator mandatory. Instead, this proposed rule would permit the
following: (1) Completion of an approved course using either a
simulator or a towing vessel to demonstrate operational skills
associated with towing vessels before a designated examiner; and (2)
check-ride with a designated examiner. Additionally, this rule would
permit mariners to complete a refresher-training course on rules of the
road in lieu of an examination.
3. Horsepower as basis of authority. Current rules treat anyone
licensed as an OUTV as qualified, with some restrictions, to operate
all uninspected towing vessels. When they were developed, in 1969,
several comments recommended limiting the license by gross tonnage or
other suitable criterion. The Coast Guard did not adopt this
recommendation then, because it was already limiting licenses for
Oceans and coastwise routes by a criterion of 200 gross tons. It also
determined then that gross tonnage was not an accurate measure of the
overall capability of a towing vessel to move a tow. Current rules
restrict OUTV licenses by route. Over 20 years later, the Coast Guard
maintains that gross tonnage is not an accurate measure of the
capability of a towing vessel.
The Review recommended limiting the licenses of master and mate
(pilot) of towing vessels by the most appropriate method, whether
towing configuration, route, gross tonnage, or horsepower, Comments
responding to this recommendation chose horsepower as the best single
criterion for determining the capability of a towing vessel.
The TSAC Report also identified horsepower as the best criterion
for limiting licenses. This Report recommends 3,000 horsepower as a
break point for issuing licenses: Master
[[Page 31335]]
or mate (pilot) of towing vessels 3,000 horsepower or less, and master
or mate (pilot) of towing vessels of unlimited horsepower. TSAC
concluded that only tows of a certain size can be put on vessels of
lower horsepower. Differing opinions arose among the full advisory
committee following its working group's recommendation. Some held 3,000
horsepower too high, some too low; while others felt that two break
points were necessary. Nevertheless, the vast majority agreed that it
was appropriate to limit licenses by horsepower. However, vessels
operating beyond the boundary line would still need an STCW endorsement
with tonnage of vessel, even though the license was based on
horsepower. One comment noted that the average raft of barges bound
down the Lower Mississippi River comprises 35 loaded barges and
contains over 50,000 tons of cargo, and that the average of these tows
is 245 feet wide and 1,200 feet long with a draft of 9 to 11 feet. This
is longer and wider than any ship that sails the open sea--and a raft
of barges bound up the river can be half again as long. While there is
no precise correlation between horsepower and the number of barges
towed, the Coast Guard recognizes the different skills, knowledge, and
responsibility required to maneuver the larger vessels and more
numerous barges when compared to the smaller vessels and less numerous
barges. It has determined that a corresponding distinction is necessary
in the licensing structure.
The Coast Guard agrees that horsepower is the best single criterion
for limiting licenses. It further agrees that a single break point, at
3,000 horsepower, would effectively distinguish between the
considerable skills, knowledge, and responsibility necessary to control
typical tows and the extraordinary ones necessary to control gargantuan
tows.
The Coast Guard also recognizes the impact of choosing any
particular level of horsepower for the break point. Many companies
operate numerous towing vessels, of varying levels. Therefore, the
choice of a level may divide mariners within a company. Within the
documented towing fleet recorded in the Coast Guard's Marine Safety
Information System (MSIS), about 20 percent of towing vessels are of
3,000 horsepower or greater. Therefore, the choice of this level would
require only about 20 percent of affected mariners to hold the
endorsement for unlimited horsepower on their licenses.
Following the TSAC Report, representatives of the harbor-towing
industry expressed concern. Because of the specific nature of their
operations, and relatively small range in the horsepower of their
vessels, they worried that the disruption of operations due to a
limitation of licenses by horsepower would outweigh the gains in
safety. The primary reasoning was that most of their vessels are plus
or minus 1,500 horsepower from the 3,000 horsepower; and that,
therefore, no vastly different skills are necessary. The Coast Guard
invites comment on whether a special harbor endorsement, free of
limitation by horsepower, is appropriate.
4. Routes. Under this proposed rule, towing vessel licenses would
be issued on the following routes:
a. Oceans.
b. Near-coastal routes.
c. Great Lakes and inland routes.
d. Rivers.
e. Western rivers.
f. Restricted local area designated by the Officer in Charge,
Marine Inspection (OCMI).
The license of a master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels endorsed
for Oceans would authorize service on Near-coastal routes, Great Lakes
and inland routes, and Rivers upon 30 days of observation and training
on each subordinate route. That of a master or mate (pilot) of towing
vessels endorsed for Near-coastal routes would authorize service on
Great Lakes and inland routes and Rivers upon 30 days of observation
and training on each subordinate route.
On the Western rivers, the method of towing, the aids to
navigation, the operating methods, and the operating environment are
unique. Qualification as a master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels
even endorsed for Oceans, Near-coastal routes, Great Lakes and inland
routes, and Rivers would not authorize operation on Western rivers. For
this endorsement, 90 days of operation and training on a Western Rivers
route would be required.
For a route endorsement not included in his or her current
endorsements, an applicant would have to pass an exam for the route and
serve in the next lower grade for 90 days. After the 90 days of
experience on the applied-for route, the lower-trade restriction would
be removed. For example, an individual holding a license as master of
towing vessels endorsed for rivers, applying for one as master of
towing vessels endorsed for a near-coastal route would have to pass an
exam for this route and submit evidence of 90 days of experience as a
mate on this route. Upon completion of the required sea service, the
applicant would have his or her license endorsed for this route.
Specific comments regarding changes to route endorsements are
requested.
5. Demonstration of proficiency. With the exception of radar-
observer training and flashing-light communications, the Coast Guard
uses the traditional knowledge-based examination. While this
examination is a reliable, effective tool to evaluate a mariner's
skills in navigation techniques, vessel management, safety precautions,
stability calculations, hazardous-materials regulation, engineering
theory, and similar subjects, it does not assess a mariner's actual
proficiency in vessel maneuvering and safe navigation. This proposed
rule would require a practical demonstration of proficiency for a
mariner to obtain an original license as mate (pilot) of towing
vessels. The Coast Guard concludes that a performance-based assessment
would provide a truer measure of a mariner's skills.
When establishing a performance-based assessment, one must keep two
things in mind: First, the diversity of the towing industry; second,
the methods necessary to evaluate a mariner's skills.
The towing industry covers a lot of ground, in several senses.
Fleeting tugs, ocean towers, harbor tugs, assistance towers, and line
haulers all differ from one another in their displacements and power.
Likewise, they differ from one another in their grades--from oceanic
and coastwise trade, where a tug tows a small number of barges astern
on a hawser, to trade on the rivers including the Western rivers, where
a tug pushes a large number of barges ahead.
The Coast Guard also recognizes that various, specialized vessel-
handling skills are necessary to maneuver various tows and that these
are as important to evaluate as the traditional knowledge-based
examination is to administer. It is for these reasons the Coast Guard
is proposing a practical demonstration of proficiency.
To assess a mariner's practical skills, the Coast Guard introduces
the concept of a designated examiner: A towing-vessel expert who will
provide verification of an apprentice mate's (steersman's) proficiency
in vessel-handling and related safety issues.
To help designated examiners in their duty, all apprentice mates
(steersmen) would have to keep training- and assessment-record books.
These books would specify the training required to reach the necessary
standard of competence for a license as mate (pilot) of towing vessels.
A training- and assessment-record book must provide certain basic
information including an indication, by means of the initials or
signature of a clearly identified, designated examiner, that the
candidate
[[Page 31336]]
has established, through practical demonstrations, that he or she is
competent in each of the subjects of knowledge, understanding, and
proficiency. Mariners desiring towing-vessel endorsements on their
masters' or mates' licenses would also have to complete these books.
Again, given the diversity in the towing industry, the training-
and assessment-record book would have to be a flexible tool. While this
preamble mentions a model training- and assessment-record book, towing
companies would be free to conform their books to the contours of their
vessels' operations. In all cases, the companies' variants would have
to satisfy, for the applicable routes, the minimum standards provided
in the model. The books would be freestanding documents and,
ultimately, the responsibility of the individual mariners to maintain.
After review of them, the designated examiners would conduct final
assessments of specific skills.
Three of the recommendations in the Review suggested that
simulators should become a mandatory method of assessing an
individual's competence, for an original license, a renewal of license,
and a change in scope of license. Four comments, three of whose writers
hailed from the oceanic and coastal towing industry, agreed that
simulators should become a mandatory method. Fourteen comments, in
dissent from these recommendations and comments, opposed simulators'
becoming a mandatory method for towing vessels. Primary arguments
included the limited application of simulators for shallow-draft,
close-quarters maneuvering; their lack of availability; and their costs
as an undue hardship. (All of these comments, however, agreed that some
form of practical demonstration of proficiency would be beneficial in
assessing mariners' competence.) MERPAC similarly concluded that
simulators were not a feasible method of assessment to require at this
time.
The TSAC Report recommends that the Coast Guard continue to
research the application of simulators. TSAC recognizes that simulators
are excellent tools and offer the possibility of practical
demonstrations of proficiency once the problems of performance
standards, availability, and cost are resolved.
While the Coast Guard sees great merit in the use of simulators, it
acknowledges the same three problems. Accordingly, this proposed rule
would make the use of simulators, in the assessment of competence,
optional.
This proposed rule would allow three alternative methods for
assessment of a mariner's practical skill. The alternative methods are
(1) Completion of an approved training course with assessment by
simulator; (2) completion of an approved training course with
assessment by check-ride on a towing vessel, which may be part of a
company's training program; and (3) assessment by check-ride on a
towing vessel, with a designated examiner. An element common to all
would be the mariner's having to complete a training- and assessment-
record book that includes a demonstration of proficiency before a
designated examiner.
6. Training. Licensing 2000 recommended increased emphasis on
approved courses, and other, more formalized methods of training,
rather than ``seatime,'' as the principal guarantor of competency. Both
MERPAC and TSAC have endorsed this recommendation. The TSAC Report
recommends that every applicant for the license as mate (pilot) of
towing vessels complete an approved training program that covers (a)
Classroom instruction in shipboard management, seamanship, navigation,
radar, meteorology, maneuvering and handling vessels, engine basics,
preventing and fighting fires, emergency procedures, and lifesaving and
environmental regulations; and (b) demonstration of proficiency on
board a towing vessel.
The Coast Guard concurs with the recommendation of the TSAC Report
and has included in this proposed rule a provision for a training
course. This would involve classroom instruction and practical
demonstration of proficiency either on board a towing vessel or at a
shoreside training facility (i.e., on a simulator). Many towing
companies currently have in place model training programs that employ
practical, ``hands-on'' assessment of competence and classroom
training. These programs have proved highly effective and are in
keeping with current international and domestic initiatives that
encourage mariners to complete either training programs or courses.
Nevertheless, to be consistent with requirements for other masters' and
mates' licenses, this rule would not make completion of an approved
course mandatory. Instead, under this rule a mariner could complete an
approved training course or demonstrate his or her skills before a
designated examiner to satisfy the requirement for practical
demonstration of skills for the license as mate (pilot) of towing
vessels. The Coast Guard invites comment on whether (a) this training
should be made mandatory for all applicants; (b) the training should be
completed at the level of apprentice mate (steersman) since mariners
must pass the examination at that level and since this training may
also help prepare them for the examination; and (c) applicants should
receive credit equivalent to sea service for completing the training
and, if so, how much.
7. Examination. The written examination previously required for the
license as OUTV would continue to be available for that as apprentice
mate (steersman): Its topics, outlined in Table 10.910-2, appear
sufficient for that as apprentice mate (steersman), without substantial
changes.
However, an examination or some refresher training on rules of the
road would be necessary for every renewal of a license. TSAC endorsed
this concept, agreeing that refresher training on rules of the road
might prevent some casualties and help improve the overall proficiency
of mariners in charge of all vessels. Specific comment is requested on
how this proposed rule can better define examination and refresher
training on rules of the road.
8. Designated examiner. As defined in this proposed rule, a
designated examiner is an individual trained or instructed in
assessment techniques and otherwise qualified to evaluate whether a
candidate for a license, document, or endorsement has achieved the
level of competency necessary to hold the license, document, or
endorsement. This individual may be personally designated by the Coast
Guard, or be designated within the context of an approved program of
training or assessment approved by the Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard is working with MERPAC and TSAC to identify
criteria for certifying designated examiners. The MERPAC working groups
engaged in these efforts have settled on a concept under which the
Coast Guard would individually certify designated examiners who meet
the following criteria: ``(a) have attained a level of qualification at
least equivalent to the qualifications for which the assessment is
being conducted; (b) have at least 2 years of operational experience in
a capacity corresponding to the level of qualification concerned; and
(c) understand and implement assessment techniques and evaluation
processes established by the U.S. Coast Guard.'' Meanwhile, TSAC
proposed similar criteria, but recommended specific training in
assessment techniques and evaluation processes and either one written
recommendation from a towing company attesting the applicant's
qualification to serve as designated examiner or three letters of
[[Page 31337]]
recommendation from masters of towing vessels.
The Coast Guard invites comment concerning (a) its involvement in
individually certifying designated examiners and (b) the specific
assessment and instruction training techniques necessary for those who
assess candidates for towing vessel licenses or endorsements.
9. Approved training other than approved courses. The Coast Guard
is including in this proposed rule and in that in CGD 95-062 (61 FR
13284; March 26, 1996), on STCW, an alternative to its current course-
approval system. Proposed new Sec. 10.309 rests on the principle of
self-certification with minimal Coast Guard oversight based on
acceptance by the Coast Guard of certain materials and procedures to
maintain standards. In other words, completion certificates issued by
training programs that meet the conditions stated in that section could
be accepted as proof of passage of the ``approved training course.''
This could be done by a process like that used to credit ``approved
seagoing service'' after the fact, on sufficient documentary proof. If
the Coast Guard learned that the conditions set out in new Sec. 10.309
were not being met by a particular training program, it would not
accept certificates of completion of the program as proof of completion
of the necessary training itself. The conditions for conducting
approved training other than approved courses are set out in new
Sec. 10.309.
The Coast Guard welcomes comment on this alternative approach,
particularly with respect to its own involvement in overseeing and
maintaining standards through a Coast-Guard-acceptance procedure.
10. Responsibility of towing vessel owners and operators. One of
the recommendations in the Review stated that the Coast Guard should
emphasize the responsibility of towing-vessel owners to employ only
qualified, experienced personnel as operators in charge or masters of
their vessels. Five comments agreed with this, and none opposed it.
The Coast Guard concludes that towing companies have taken on this
responsibility in the past, given the front-end qualifications for
licensing. Many companies have already demonstrated their commitment to
safety by training and evaluating their employees. Under this proposed
rule, they would share greater responsibility for mariners' training
and qualifications by establishing approved training courses, by
recommending designated examiners, and in overseeing the completion of
mariners' training- and assessment-record books. This increase in
responsibility also is consistent with Licensing 2000 and with the TSAC
Report, both of which urge increased responsibility, and
accountability, by companies for the competence and quality of
mariners.
Summary of Proposed Changes
45 CFR Part 10--Licensing of Maritime Personnel
1. In general, throughout this part the terms ``operator of
uninspected towing vessels'' and ``second-class operators of
uninspected towing vessels'' would be replaced by ``master of towing
vessels'' and ``mate (pilot) of towing vessels''. Furthermore, a
license and title of ``apprentice mate (steersman '' would be added as
the first step toward a license as master or mate (pilot) of towing
vessels.
2. The authority citation for part 10 would be revised by adding 14
U.S.C. 633 and 46 U.S.C. 2110, 7109, 7302, 7505, and 7701.
3. Section 10.103 would be revised by adding definitions of the
following: apprentice mate (steerman) of towing vessels; approved
training; Coast-Guard-accepted; designated examiner; pilot of towing
vessels; practical demonstration; qualified instructor; standard of
competence; and steersman of towing vessels.
4. Section 10.201(f)(2) would be revised by requiring that an
apprentice mate (steersman) of towing vessels be at least 18 years of
old.
5. Section 10.209(c)(6) would be added and would require each
applicant for renewal of a license as master or mate (pilot) of towing
vessels to submit satisfactory evidence both of practical demonstration
of skills before a designated examiner or completion of an approved
course and of rules-of-the-road examination or refresher training.
6. Section 10.304(e) would be added to require the completion of a
training- and assessment-record book, for a license as mate (pilot) of
towing vessels.
7. Section 10.309 would be added to provide an alternative to the
course-approval system in Sec. 10.302. The training would have to be
set out in a Coast-Guard-accepted written syllabus showing the subjects
covered, the classroom time required, and the qualifications of the
instructors. Simulators could be used in this training if they met
applicable performance standards and were used by an instructor with
appropriate guidance in instructional techniques involving their use.
8. In Sec. 10.403, Figure 10.403 would be revised by adding the
proposed hierarchy of licenses for towing vessels under 200 gross tons.
9. Sections 10.412(a), 10.414(a), and 10.420 would be revised by
removing the words ``operator of uninspected towing vessels,''.
10. Section 10.418(b) would be revised to require 1 year of service
as master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on Oceans or Near-coastal
routes to be eligible for a license as master of Ocean or Near-coastal
steam or motor vessels of not more than 500 gross tons.
11. Section 10.446(b) would be revised by increasing the service
requirement to be eligible for a license as master of Great Lakes and
inland steam or motor vessels of not more than 500 gross tons from 6
months to 1 year of service as master of towing vessels.
12. Section 10.463 would be added to explain (a) the hierarchy of
licenses for masters and mates (pilots) of towing vessels and (b) route
endorsements. The Coast Guard proposes issuing licenses as master and
mate (pilot) of towing vessels in two categories: unlimited horsepower
and 3,000 horsepower or less. Towing vessel licenses are, and will
continue to be, endorsed for Oceans and Near-coastal routes by the
gross tonnage of the towing vessels on which the experience was
acquired. Other route endorsements without limits of gross tonnage are,
and will continue to be, Great Lakes and inland routes, Rivers, Western
rivers, and Restricted local areas designated by Officers in Charge,
Marine Inspection.
13. Section 10.464 would be revised to explain the proposed
requirements for masters of towing vessels, including training and
service. For a license as master of towing vessels, regardless of
horsepower, the requirement would normally be 4 years of total service.
Section 10.464 would also explain requirements for a master of
self-propelled vessels of greater than 200 gross tons to get a towing-
vessel endorsement: pass a written examination on towing; obtain 30
days of training and observation on towing vessels on the route for
which the endorsement is requested (this endorsement would be
restricted to the horsepower of the service presented); complete a
Coast-Guard-accepted training- and assessment-record book; and present
satisfactory evidence of successful completion of a practical
demonstration before a designated examiner.
14. Section 10.465 would be added to explain the proposed
requirements for mates (pilots) of towing vessels, including required
training and service. For a license as mate (pilot) of towing vessels,
regardless of horsepower, the
[[Page 31338]]
requirement would normally be 30 months of total service. This section
would also describe proposed requirements for completion of a training-
and assessment-record book and for a practical demonstration of
proficiency before a designated examiner.
Section 10.465 would also explain requirements for a mate of self-
propelled vessels of greater than 200 gross tons to get a towing-vessel
endorsement: pass a written examination on towing; obtain 30 days of
training and observation on towing vessels on the route for which the
endorsement is requested (this endorsement would be restricted to the
horsepower of the service presented); complete a Coast-Guard-accepted
training- and assessment-record book; and present satisfactory evidence
of successful completion of a practical demonstration before a
designated examiner.
15. Section 10.466 would be redesignated as Sec. 10.467, and a new
Sec. 10.466 would be added to explain the requirements for apprentice
mate (steersman) of towing vessels including the following: he or she
would have to prove 18 months of service on deck, 12 months of this on
towing vessels; and he or she would have to pass an examination.
16. For an added endorsement of route on any of these licenses, an
applicant holding any of these licenses would have to prove 3 months of
experience on towing vessels, in the next lower grade, on the route
requested.
17. Section 10.482(a) would be revised to explain the requirements
to qualify for an endorsement authorizing an applicant to engage in
assistance towing. The endorsement would apply to all licenses except
those for master and mate (pilot) of towing vessels and those
authorizing service on inspected vessels over 200 gross tons. Holders
of any of these licenses could engage in assistance towing within the
scope of the licenses and without the endorsement.
18. In Sec. 10.903, paragraphs (a)(18) and (b)(4) would be revised
to show that the licenses for apprentice mate (steersman) of towing
vessels would require examinations and that the licenses for master or
mate (pilot) of towing vessels (endorsed for the same route) would not.
46 CFR Part 15--Manning Requirements
19. The authority citation for part 15 would be revised to add 46
U.S.C. 2103, 8101, 8502, 8901, 8902, 8903, 8904, and 9102 and 50 U.S.C.
198.
20. Section 15.301(b)(6) would be removed because the terms master
and mate (pilot) appear in paragraphs (1) and (2).
21. Section 15.610 would be revised by requiring every towing
vessel at least 8 meters (about 26 feet) in length to be under the
direction and control of a person licensed as master or mate (pilot) of
towing vessels or as master or mate of appropriate gross tonnage
holding an endorsement of his or her license for towing vessels.
22. Section 15.805(a)(5) would be added to require that every
towing vessel of 8 meters (about 26 feet) or more in length must be
under the command of an individual holding an appropriate license as
master.
23. In Sec. 15.810, a new paragraph (d) would require that the
person in charge of the navigation or maneuvering of a towing vessel of
8 meters (about 26 feet) or more in length shall hold either a license
authorizing service as mate (pilot) of towing vessels--or, on inland
routes; as pilot of towing vessels--or a license as master of
appropriate gross tonnage endorsed for towing vessels.
24. Section 15.910(a) would be revised to require that ``No person
may serve as master or mate (pilot) of any towing vessel of 8 meters
(about 26 feet) or more in length unless he or she holds a license
explicitly authorizing such service.''
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 not been reviewed 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 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is
unnecessary.
Benefits: The report directed by the Secretary of Transportation,
Review of Marine Safety Issues Related to Uninspected Towing Vessels,
directly attributed 7,664 vessel casualties, including that involving
the MORRIS J. BERMAN, to personnel error. The Coast Guard affirms that,
of that 60 percent of towing-vessel casualties, the dominant categories
of human error were management, operator status, knowledge, and
decision-making, which are all relevant to this proposal.
The training required by this proposal has the potential to
significantly decrease the number of fatalities and injuries in the
towing industry. If this proposal causes a reduction in the number of
fatalities by 37 in 1997, 29 in 1998, 23 in 1999, 13 in 2000, 10 in
2001, and 8 in 2002, the benefits will exceed the costs. The complex
cumulative effect of human error makes it difficult to quantify the
exact benefits of the proposal. One way to reduce the risks associated
with human error in operating towing vessels is to ensure that mariners
maintain the highest practicable standards of training, certification,
and competence. The proposal is intended to accrue benefits from a
reduction of towing vessel accidents and injuries through an increased
awareness of safe towing practices.
Costs: There are about 5,400 documented towing vessels in the
United States. The impact on the people now operating these vessels
would be low because holders of current licenses would be grandfathered
into licenses commensurate with their experience. Because these new
licenses would be issued at the time of routine renewal, there would be
no new users' fees for them. This proposed rule, however, would result
in increased fees for new entrants into the industry. They would now
have to obtain several intermediate licenses to reach the license with
the broadest operating authority, paying a separate fee for each
license. As of December 1, 1993, there were 12,019 licensed OUTVs. From
1989 to 1993, an average of 473 new licenses as OUTVs were issued
annually, and an average 1,931 licenses as OUTVs were renewed annually.
The probable costs in user's fees for an entrant into the towing
industry are as follows:
1. The license for an apprentice would be issued at the current
user's fees for a license as an OUTV. These fees are as follows:
Evaluation fee............................................... $65.00
Examination fee.............................................. 80.00
Issuance fee................................................. 35.00
----------
Total.................................................. 180.00
Note: Because these fees are part of the current user's fees,
none would represent ``new money''.
2. Now, the holder of a license as an OUTV pays these fees once and
pays no others. If the hierarchy of licenses as masters or mates
(pilot) of towing vessels were adopted, the mariner would pay
evaluation and issuance fees for each successive license. These fees
are as follows:
[[Page 31339]]
License Fee (evaluation and issuance)................... $100.00
Multiplied by the additional levels of licensing........ x 2
Total added cost for each licensed master........... $200.00
New licenses issued each year........................... 473
Towing-vessel endorsements on other licenses (estimated) +47
---------------
Total mariners affected each year................... 520
Total added costs for each licensed master.......... $200.00
Multiplied by the total masters affected each year.. x 520
---------------
Maximum additional cost for new applicants.......... $104,000.00
Note: These costs would be incurred over a minimum of 3\1/2\
years.
The actual figure should be far less than this maximum additional
cost because not all masters and mates (pilots) would rise through all
levels. Further, the issuance of new licenses may supersede renewal
fees.
The Coast Guard would not increase the user's fee for its
evaluation of a mariner's demonstrations of proficiency. It would,
however, incur and pass along costs for demonstrations of proficiency.
It expects that these costs would be shared by the mariner and the
employer.
There are three, alternative methods of demonstrating proficiency;
they and their costs appear as follows:
(1) Completion of an approved training course using a simulator to
demonstrate proficiency. Around 5 percent of the towing industry
currently uses simulators to test proficiency. The Coast Guard
estimates that an additional 5 percent might elect this method as a
result of this rulemaking. The latter number might grow as simulators
become more readily available. The following calculations represent the
estimated prevalence of the use of simulators to demonstrate
proficiency and the estimated costs of that use:
Prevalence of simulators to demonstrate proficiency
New licenses issued each year........................... 520
Multiplied by the percentage of new applicants using
simulators............................................. (5%) x .05
---------------
New licenses based on simulator proficiency......... 26
Cost of use of simulator to demonstrate proficiency
Estimated cost of one-week simulator course............. $5,000.00
Multiplied by the number of students.................... x 26
---------------
Total costs each year............................... $130,000.00
(2) Completion of an approved training course using a towing vessel
to demonstrate proficiency. The Coast Guard estimates that 65 percent,
or 338 of the 520 mariners who obtain towing licenses annually, would
use this option. An estimated 70 percent of towing companies already
have formal training courses available for their deck officers. With
this in mind, the Coast Guard estimates that 70 percent of the 338
mariners, or 237 mariners, would be trained by company programs already
in place. Therefore, approximately 101 mariners would attend a course
offered by a maritime training facility not associated with a company.
The new costs associated with this option would be paid by the mariner
if he or she did not have access to a towing company's in-house course.
Estimated numbers using completion of a training course to demonstrate
proficiency
New licenses issued each year.............................. 520
Minus those based on using simulators (and check-rides,
below).................................................... -182
New licenses based on using training course................ 338
Multiplied by percentage of individuals not covered by
company training programs................................. (30%) x .30
New licenses based on training courses excluding existing
company programs.......................................... 101
Estimated total annual cost of new training courses
Cost for each new applicant................................ $5,000
Multiplied by number of students........................... x 101
------------
Total costs each year................................ $505,000
(3) Check-ride with a designated examiner. A survey by TSAC
suggests that about 30 percent of towing companies would use this
method. These costs, including hiring a designated examiner for a final
check-ride, would most likely be shared by the mariner and the
employer:
Estimated numbers using check-rides to demonstrate proficiency
New licenses issued each year........................... 520
Multiplied by the percent of new applicants using check-
rides.................................................. (30%) x .30
New licenses based on using check-rides................. 156
Estimated costs of using check-rides
Wage of towing operator (for 12-hour day)............... $350.00
Wage of same operator (for 1 hour)...................... $30.00
Multiplied by duration of check-ride (in hours)......... x 5
Cost for each check-ride................................ $150.00
[[Page 31340]]
Estimated total annual costs of using check-rides
Cost for each check-ride................................ $150.00
Multipled by the number of new licenses based on using
check-rides............................................ x 156
---------------
Total cost each year.............................. $23,400.00
Estimated numbers of operators applying for endorsement as
designated examiner.
A common cost included in all three methods of demonstrating
proficiency is the cost of training the designated examiner in
assessment technique.
The Coast Guard estimates that 5 percent of the current operators
of towing vessels would apply for the endorsement as designated
examiner. The following calculations demonstrate estimated costs of
training designated examiners in examination techniques:
Cost of operators applying for endorsement as designated examiner
Total number of operators of towing vessels as of April
1996...................................................... 12,895
Multiplied by the percentage of operators applying for
endorsement as designated examiner........................ (5%) x .05
Total number of designated examiners 645
Cost of training in examination techniques................. x $250
------------
Total cost of training designated examiners.......... $161,250
Estimated cost of refresher training on rules of the road for
renewal of license.
The costs assume that all licensed masters and mates complete
refresher training on rules of the road, instead of Coast Guard
examination, for renewal of their license.
Total number of operators of towing vessels as of April
1996...................................................... 12,895
Divided by number of years in cycle of renewal............. 5
Number of renewals each year............................... 2,579
Multiplied by the estimated cost of refresher training..... x $150
------------
Total annual cost of refresher training.............. $386,850
Estimated annual costs of this rulemaking are as follows:
Users' fees................................................ $104,000
Approved training course using a simulator................. 130,000
Approved training course using a towing vessel............. 505,00
Check-rides with designated examiner....................... 23,400
Designated examiners' training............................. 161,250
Refresher training......................................... 386,850
------------
Annual new costs for rulemaking...................... 1,310,500
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this proposed rule, if adopted, would
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. ``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.
This proposed rule would place its primary economic burden on the
mariners, not on their employers--who may, though they need not, assume
responsibility for this burden. The Coast Guard expects that, of the
employers who would assume this responsibility, few if any would be
small entities. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule, if adopted, would 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 would have a significant economic impact on
your business or organization, please submit a comment (see
``ADDRESSES'') explaining why it qualifies and in what way and to what
degree this proposed rule would economically affect it.
Collection of Information
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews each proposed rule that
contains a collection-of-information requirement to determine whether
the practical value of the information is worth the burden imposed by
its collection. Collection-of-information requirements comprise
reporting, recordkeeping, notification, and other, similar
requirements.
This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements
in Secs. 10.304, 10.309, 10.463, 10.464, and 10.465. The following
particulars apply:
DOT No.: 2115.
OMB Control No.: 2115 AF23.
Administration: U.S. Coast Guard.
Title: Licensing and Manning for Officers of Towing Vessels.
Need For Information: This proposed rule would require every
mariner who seeks an original license as mate (pilot) of towing vessels
or an endorsement for towing vessels to have a training- and
assessment-record book. It may also require a report on a final check-
ride before a designated examiner. These recordkeeping requirements are
largely consistent with good commercial practices to the end of good
seamanship for safe navigation. The following is a section-by-section
justification of them:
Proposed Sec. 10.304(e) would require each applicant for a license
as mate (pilot) of towing vessels, and each master or mate of self-
propelled vessels of greater than 200 gross tons seeking an endorsement
for towing vessels, to complete a training- and assessment-record book.
Proposed Secs. 10.309 (a)(10) and (b) would, respectively, require
those monitoring the training under this section to communicate their
conclusions to the Coast Guard within 1 month of the completion of the
[[Page 31341]]
monitoring and require those providing the training to submit a
certificate to the Coast Guard once a year.
Proposed Sec. 10.463(h) would require a company to maintain
evidence that every vessel it operates is under the direction and
control of a licensed mariner with appropriate experience, including 30
days of observation and training on the intended route. This could be
accomplished with copies of current licenses and voyage records that
most companies already keep.
Proposed Sec. 10.464(d)(2) would require masters of vessels of
greater than 200 GT to maintain training- and assessment-record books
for license endorsements as master of towing vessels. Collection of
this information is necessary to ensure that the mariner has completed
the series of qualification for licensing.
Proposed Sec. 10.465(d)(2) would require mates of vessels of
greater than 200 GT to maintain a training- and assessment-record books
for license endorsements as mate (pilot) of towing vessels. Collection
of this information is necessary to ensure that the mariner has
completed the series of qualification for licensing.
Proposed Secs. 10.465(a)(2), (b)(2), (c)(2) and (d)(2) would
require a final check-ride before a designated examiner. They would
then require the applicant to submit his or her completed training- and
assessment-record book to the Coast Guard Regional Examination Center.
Collection of this information is necessary because it would raise the
safety of towing by upgrading the evaluation process.
Proposed use of Information: This information would warrant the
mariner qualified to hold a license for the service in which he or she
would engage.
Frequency of Response: Evidence of qualification for an original
license as mate (pilot) of towing vessels under proposed Sec. 10.465
would accumulate periodically during an 18-month period. Final check-
ride before a designated examiner under proposed Secs. 10.465(a)(2),
(b)(2), (c)(2), and (d)(2) would entail a one-time record after the
mariner's training- and assessment-record book had been completed.
Burden Estimate: 1,590 hours.
Respondents: 1,060 mariners of towing vessels.
Average Burden Hours Per Respondent: 1.5 hours.
The Coast Guard has submitted the requirements to OMB for review
under section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Persons submitting
comments on the requirements should submit their comments both to OMB
and to the Coast Guard where indicated under addresses.
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 considered the environmental impact of this
proposal and concluded that, under paragraph 2.B.2 of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1B, this proposal is categorically excluded from
further environmental documentation. The rule is a matter of
``training, qualifying, licensing, and disciplining of maritime
personnel'' within the meaning of subparagraph 2.B.2.e.(34)(c) of
Commandant Instruction M16475.1B that clearly has no environmental
impact. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is available in the
docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects
46 CFR Part 10
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Seamen.
46 CFR Part 15
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen, Vessels.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 46 CFR parts 10 and 15 as follows:
PART 10--LICENSING OF MARITIME PERSONNEL
1. Revise the authority citation for part 10 to read as follows:
Authority: 14 U.S.C. 633; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 2101, 2103,
2110, 7101, 7106, 7107, 7109, 7302, 7505, 7701; 49 CFR 1.45 and
1.46. Section 10.107 is also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C.
3507.
2. To Sec. 10.103, add definitions, in alphabetical order, to read
as follows:
Sec. 10.103 Definitions of terms used in this part.
Apprentice mate (steersman) of towing vessels means a mariner
qualified to perform watchkeeping on the bridge while in training under
the direct supervision of a licensed master, mate, or pilot of towing
vessels.
Approved training means training that is approved by the Coast
Guard or meets the requirements of Sec. 10.309.
* * * * *
Coast-Guard-accepted means that the Coast Guard has acknowledged in
writing that the material or process at issue meets the applicable
requirements; that the Coast Guard has issued an official policy
statement listing or describing the material or process as meeting the
applicable requirements; or that an entity acting on behalf of the
Coast Guard under a Memorandum of Agreement has determined that the
material or process meets the applicable requirements.
* * * * *
Designated Examiner means an individual who has been trained or
instructed in techniques of training or assessment and is otherwise
qualified to evaluate whether a candidate for a license, document, or
endorsement has achieved the level of competence required to hold the
license, document, or endorsement. This individual may be designated by
the Coast Guard or by a Coast-Guard-approved program of training or
assessment.
* * * * *
Pilot of towing vessels means a qualified officer of towing vessels
operating exclusively on inland routes.
Practical demonstration means the performance of an activity under
the direct observation of a designated examiner for the purpose of
establishing that the performer is sufficiently proficient in a
practical skill to meet a specified standard of competence or other
objective criterion.
Qualified instructor means an individual who has been trained or
instructed in instructional techniques and is otherwise qualified to
provide required training to candidates for licenses, documents, and
endorsements.
* * * * *
Standard of competence means the level of proficiency to be
achieved for the proper performance of duties aboard a vessel in
accordance with any applicable national and international criteria.
Steersman of towing vessels means a mariner qualified to perform
watchkeeping on the bridge, aboard a towing vessel operating
exclusively on inland routes, while in training under the direct
supervision of a licensed master, mate, or pilot of towing vessels.
* * * * *
Sec. 10.201 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 10.201, in paragraph (f)(1), remove the words ``second-
class operator of uninspected towing vessel'' and add, in their place,
the words ``mate (pilot) of towing vessels (19 years)''; and, in
paragraph (f)(2), remove the words ``designated duty engineer of
[[Page 31342]]
vessels of not more than 1,000 horsepower, may be granted to an
applicant who has reached the age of 18 years.'' and add, in their
place, the words ``designated duty engineer of vessels of not more than
1,000 horsepower, or apprentice mate (steersman) of towing vessels, may
be granted to an applicant, otherwise qualified, who has reached the
age of 18 years.''
Sec. 10.203 [Amended]
4. In Sec. 10.203, in Table 10.203, remove the word ``Uninspected''
from before the words ``towing vessels'' and capitalize the first
letter in the word ``towing'' in column one; and remove the words
``Operator: 21; 2/c operator: 19.'' from the license category just
amended to read ``Towing vessels'' in column two (minimum age) and add,
in their place, the words ``Master of towing vessels: 21; mate (pilot)
of towing vessels: 19; apprentice mate (steersman): 18''.
Sec. 10.205 [Amended]
5. In Sec. 10.205, in paragraph (f)(1), remove the words ``operator
of uninspected towing vessels'' and add, in their place, the words
``master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels''; and, in paragraph (g)(3),
remove the words ``All operators of uninspected towing vessels, oceans
(domestic trade)'' and add, in their pla
FR Doc. 96-15346 Licensing and Manning for Officers of Towing Vessels
ce, the words ``All licenses
for master or mate (pilot), except apprentice mate (steersman), for
towing vessels on Oceans''.
6. In Sec. 10.209, revise paragraph (c)(1) introductory text and
add paragraph (c)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 10.209 Requirements for renewal of licenses and certificates of
registry.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(6) of this section, to
renew a license as master, mate, engineer, pilot, or operator, the
applicant shall--
* * * * *
(6) An applicant for renewal of a license as master or mate (pilot)
of towing vessels shall submit satisfactory evidence, predating the
application by not more than 1 year, of satisfying the requirements of
paragraph (c)(1) (i) or (ii), or those of paragraph (c)(1)(iv) except
the exercise; and
(i) Either completing a practical demonstration of maneuvering and
handling a towing vessel before a designated examiner or completing an
approved course; and
(ii) Either passing a rules-of-the-road examination or completing a
refresher-training course.
* * * * *
7. In Sec. 10.304, revise the heading and add paragraph (e) to read
as follows:
Sec. 10.304 Substitution of training for required service, and use of
training- and assessment-record books.
* * * * *
(e) Each applicant for a license as mate (pilot) of towing vessels,
and each master or mate of self-propelled vessels of greater than 200
gross tons seeking an endorsement for towing vessels, shall complete a
training- and assessment-record book that contains at least the
following:
(1) Identification of the candidate, including full name, home
address, photograph or photo-image, and personal signature.
(2) Objectives of the training and assessment.
(3) Tasks to be performed or skills to be demonstrated.
(4) Criteria to be used in determining that the tasks or skills
have been performed properly.
(5) Places for a qualified instructor to indicate by his or her
initials that the candidate has received training in the proper
performance of the tasks or skills.
(6) A place for a qualified examiner to indicate by his or her
initials that the candidate has successfully completed a practical
demonstration and has proved competent in the task or skill under the
criteria.
(7) Identification of each qualified instructor by full name, home
address, employer, job title, ship name or business address, number of
any Coast Guard license or document held, and personal signature.
(8) Identification of each designated examiner by full name, home
address, employer, job title, ship name or business address, number of
any Coast Guard license or document held, and personal signature
confirming that his or her initials certify that he or she has
witnessed the practical demonstration of a particular task or skill by
the candidate.
8. Add section 10.309 to read as follows:
Sec. 10.309 Approved training other than approved courses.
(a) When the training and assessment of competence required by this
part are not subject to Sec. 10.302 and are not being used to
substitute for seagoing service, they may meet the following
requirements:
(1) The training and assessment must have written, clearly defined
objectives that emphasize specific knowledge, skills, and abilities,
and include criteria to use in establishing a candidate's successful
achievement of the objectives.
(2) The training must be set out in a written syllabus that
conforms to a Coast-Guard-accepted outline for such training and
includes--
(i) The sequence of subjects to be covered;
(ii) The number of classroom hours in the presence of a qualified
instructor to be spent on each subject;
(iii) The identity and professional qualifications of each
instructor conducting the training;
(iv) The identification of other media or facilities to be used in
conducting the training; and
(v) Measurements at appropriate intervals of each candidate's
progress toward acquisition of the specific knowledge, skills, and
abilities stated in the objectives.
(3) Except as provided in paragraphs (a) (4) and (5) of this
section, documentary evidence must be readily available to establish
that all instructors--
(i) Have experience, training, or instruction in effective
instructional techniques;
(ii) Are qualified in the task for which the training is being
conducted; and
(iii) Hold the level of license, endorsement, or other professional
credential required of those who would apply, on board a vessel, the
relevant level of knowledge, abilities, and skills described in the
training objectives.
(4) Neither a specialist in a particular field of non-maritime
education, such as mathematics or first aid, nor an individual with at
least 3 years of service as a member of the Armed Forces of the United
States specializing in the field in which he or she is to conduct
training, need hold a maritime license or document to conduct training
in that field.
(5) A simulator may be used in training if--
(i) The simulator meets applicable performance standards;
(ii) The instructor has gained practical operational experience on
the particular type of simulator being used; and
(iii) The instructor employing the simulator has received
appropriate guidance in instructional techniques involving the use of
simulators.
(6) Essential equipment and instructional materials must afford all
candidates adequate opportunity to participate in exercises and acquire
practice in performing required skills.
(7) A process of routinely assessing the effectiveness of the
instructors,
[[Page 31343]]
including the use of confidential evaluations by candidates, must be in
place.
(8) Records of candidates' performance must be maintained for at
least 1 year.
(9) To ensure that the training is meeting its objectives, and the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, its offeror shall
monitor it at suitable intervals in accordance with a Coast-Guard-
accepted quality-standards system, which must include the following
features:
(i) Those monitoring the training shall be persons knowledgeable
about the subjects being monitored and about the national and
international requirements that apply to the training, and shall not
themselves be involved in the training.
(ii) Those monitoring the training shall enjoy convenient access to
all appropriate documents and facilities, and opportunities both to
observe all appropriate activities and to conduct confidential
interviews when necessary.
(iii) Arrangements must be such as to ensure that persons
monitoring the training are not penalized or rewarded, directly or
indirectly, by the sponsor of the training for making any particular
observations or for reaching any particular conclusions.
(10) Those monitoring the training shall communicate their
conclusions to the Coast Guard within 1 month of the completion of the
monitoring.
(11) Those providing the training shall let the Coast Guard observe
the training and review documents relative to paragraphs (a) (1)
through (10) of this section.
(b) The Coast Guard will maintain a list of training each of whose
providers annually submits a certificate, signed by the provider or its
authorized representative, stating that the training fully complies
with requirements of this section. Training on this list will
presumptively constitute the training necessary for licenses and STCW
endorsements under this part. The Coast Guard will update this list
periodically and make it available to members of the public on request.
(c) If the Coast Guard determines, on the basis of observations or
conclusions either of its own or by those monitoring the training, that
particular training does not satisfy one or more of the conditions
described in paragraph (a) of this section--
(1) The Coast Guard will notify the provider of the training by
letter enclosing a report of the observations and conclusions;
(2) The provider will have a specified period to appeal the
conclusions to the appropriate official at Coast Guard Headquarters, or
to bring the training into compliance; and
(3) If the appeal is denied--or the deficiency is not corrected in
the allotted time, or within any additional period held by the Coast
Guard, considering progress toward compliance, to be appropriate--the
Coast Guard will remove the training from the list referred to in
paragraph (b) of this section until it can verify full compliance; and
it may deny applications, based in whole or in part, on training not on
the list until additional training or assessment is documented.
9. In Sec. 10.403, revise Figure 10.403 to read as follows:
Sec. 10.403 Deck license structure.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
[[Page 31344]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JN96.007
BILLING CODE 4910-14-C
[[Page 31345]]
Sec. 10.412 [Amended]
10. In Sec. 10.412(a), remove the words ``operator of uninspected
towing vessels,''.
Sec. 10.414 [Amended]
11. In Sec. 10.414(a), remove the words ``operator of uninspected
towing vessels,''.
12. In Sec. 10.418, revise the heading and paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 10.418 Service for master of Ocean or Near-coastal steam or
motor vessels of not more than 500 gross tons.
* * * * *
(b) The holder of a license as master or mate (pilot) of towing
vessels authorizing service on Oceans or Near-coastal routes is
eligible for a license as master of Ocean or Near-coastal steam or
motor vessels of not more than 500 gross tons after both 1 year of
service as master or mate of towing vessels on Oceans or Near-coastal
routes and completion of a limited examination.
Sec. 10.420 [Amended]
13. In Sec. 10.410, remove the words ``operator of uninspected
towing vessels,''.
Sec. 10.424 [Amended]
14. In Sec. 10.424(a)(2), remove the words ``operator or second-
class operator of ocean or near coastal uninspected towing vessels''
and add, in their place, the words ``master or mate of Ocean or Near-
coastal towing vessels''.
15. in Sec. 10.426, revise the heading and paragraph (a)(2) to read
as follows:
Sec. 10.426 Service for master of Near-coastal steam or motor vessel
of not more than 200 gross tons.
(a) * * *
(2) One year of total service as master of mate of towing vessels
on Oceans or Near-coastal routes. Completion of a limited examination
is also required.
* * * * *
Sec. 10.442 [Amended]
16. In Sec. 10.442, paragraphs (a) and (b), remove the words
``operator of uninspected towing vessels'' and add, in their place, the
words ``master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels''.
17. In Sec. 10.446, revise the heading and paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 10.446 Service for master of Great Lakes and inland steam or
motor vessels of not more than 500 gross tons.
* * * * *
(b) the holder of a license as master or mate (pilot) of towing
vessels is eligible for this license after completion of both 1 year of
service as master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels and a limited
examination.
Sec. 10.452 [Amended]
18. In Sec. 10.452(a), remove the words ``operator or second-class
operator of uninspected towing vessels'' and add, in their place, the
words ``master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels''.
Sec. 10.462 [Amended]
19. In Sec. 10.462(c), remove the words ``operator of uninspected
towing vessels'' and add, in their place, the words ``master or mate
(pilot) of towing vessels''.
20. Add section 10.463 to read as follows:
Sec. 10.463 General requirements for licenses for master, mate
(pilot), and apprentice mate (steersman) of towing vessels.
(a) The Coast Guard issues licenses as master and mate (pilot) of
towing vessels in the following categories:
(1) Unlimited horsepower.
(2) 3,000 horsepower or less.
(b) The Coast Guard restricts licenses as master and mate (pilot)
of towing vessels for Oceans and Near-coastal routes by the gross
tonnage of the towing vessels on which the experience was acquired--by
200, 500, and 1,600 gross tons in accordance with Secs. 10.414, 10,418,
and 10.412, respectively.
(c) The Coast Guard endorses licenses as master and mate (pilot) of
towing vessels for one or more of the following routes:
(1) Oceans.
(2) Near-coastal routes.
(3) Great Lakes and inland routes.
(4) Rivers.
(5) Western rivers.
(6) Restricted local areas designated by Officers in Charge Marine
Inspection.
(d) A license as master or mate of towing vessels endorsed for
Oceans authorizes service on Oceans, Near-coastal routes, Great Lakes
and inland routes, and Rivers except Western rivers upon completion of
30 days of observation and training on each subordinate route.
(e) A license as master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels endorsed
for Near-coastal routes authorizes service on Near-coastal routes,
Great Lakes and inland routes, and Rivers except Western rivers upon
completion of 30 days of observation and training on each subordinate
route.
(f) A license as master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels endorsed
for Great Lakes and inland routes authorizes service on Great Lakes and
inland routes and Rivers except Western rivers upon completion of 30
days of observation and training on the subordinate route.
(g) Before serving as master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels on
Western rivers, the licensed mariner shall possess 90 days of
observation and training and have his or her license endorsed for
Western rivers.
(h) Each company must maintain evidence that every vessel it
operates is under the direction and control of a licensed mariner with
appropriate experience, including 30 days of observation and training
on the intended route.
(i) For all inland routes, the license as pilot of towing vessels
replaces that as mate of towing vessels. All qualifications and
equivalencies are the same.
(j) For all inland routes, the license as steersman replaces that
as apprentice mate. All qualifications and equivalencies are the same.
21. Revise section 10.464 to read as follows:
Sec. 10.464 Licenses for masters of towing vessels.
(a) For a license as master of towing vessels of unlimited
horsepower, an applicant shall--
(1) Have 48 months of total service including--
(i) Eighteen months of service on deck of a towing vessel of 8
meters (about 26 feet) or over in length while holding a license as
mate (pilot) of towing vessels unlimited;
(ii) Twelve months of the 18 months, as mate (pilot) of towing
vessels of greater than 3,000 horsepower; and
(iii) Three months of the 18 months on the particular route for
which application is made; or
(2) Have 12 months of service as mate (pilot) of towing vessels of
unlimited horsepower while holding a license as master of towing
vessels of 3,000 horsepower or less including 3 months of service on
the particular route for which application is made.
(b) For a license as master of towing vessels of 3,000 horsepower
or less, an applicant shall--
(1) Have 48 months of total service including--
(i) Eighteen months of service on deck of a towing vessel of 8
meters (about 26 feet) or over in length while holding a license as
mate (pilot) of towing vessels;
(ii) Twelve months of the 18 months, as mate (pilot) of towing
vessels of 3,000 horsepower or less; and
(iii) Three months of the 18 months on the particular route for
which application is made; or
(2) Have 12 months of service as mate (pilot) of towing vessels of
3,000 horsepower or less while holding a license as limited master of
towing
[[Page 31346]]
vessels including 3 months of service on the particular route for which
application is made.
(c) For a license as master of towing vessels of 3,000 horsepower
or less endorsed for a restricted local area, an applicant shall have
36 months of total service including--
(1) Twelve months of service on deck of a towing vessel of 8 meters
(about 26 feet) or over in length as limited mate (pilot) of towing
vessels; and
(2) Three months of service on the particular route for which
application is made.
(d) The holder of a license as master of self-propelled vessels of
greater than 200 gross tons may obtain an endorsement for towing
vessels (restricted to the horsepower of the service presented) if he
or she--
(1) Has 30 days of training and observation on towing vessels on
each of the routes for which the endorsement is requested;
(2) Submits evidence of assessment of practical demonstration of
skills, in the form of a training- and assessment-record book,
described in Sec. 10.304(e); and
(3) Passes an examination.
(e) The holder of a license as master of towing vessels may have
that license endorsed as mate (pilot) for a route not included in the
current endorsements on which he or she has no operating experience
after passing an examination for that route. Upon completion of 90 days
of experience on that route, he or she may have the mate (pilot)
restriction removed.
22. Add section 10.465 to read as follows:
Sec. 10.465 Licenses for mates (pilots) of towing vessels.
(a) For a license as mate (pilot) of towing vessels of unlimited
horsepower, an applicant shall--
(1) Have 30 months of total service including--
(i) Twelve months of service on deck of a towing vessel of 8 meters
(about 26 feet) or over in length while holding a license as apprentice
mate (steersman);
(ii) Twelve months of the 30 months on towing vessels of greater
than 3,000 horsepower; and
(iii) Three months of the 12 months on the particular route for
which application is made;
(2) Submit either--
(i) A certificate of completion from a Coast-Guard-approved course
as specified in paragraph (f) of this section; or
(ii) Evidence of assessment of practical demonstration of skills,
in the form of a training- and assessment-record book in accordance
with Sec. 10.304(e); or
(3) Have 30 days of service observing and training on towing
vessels of greater than 3,000 horsepower while holding a license as
master of towing vessels of 3,000 horsepower or less and pass a partial
examination.
(b) For a license as mate (pilot) of towing vessels of 3,000
horsepower or less, an applicant shall--
(1) Have 30 months of total service including--
(i) Twelve months of service on deck of a towing vessel of 8 meters
(about 26 feet) or over in length while holding a license as apprentice
mate (steersman) of towing vessels; and
(ii) Three months of the 12 months on the particular route for
which application is made;
(2) Submit either--
(i) A certificate of completion from a Coast-Guard-approved course
as specified in paragraph (f) of this section; or
(ii) Evidence of assessment of practical demonstration of skills,
in the form of a training- and assessment-record book in accordance
with Sec. 10.304(e); or
(3) Have 30 days of service observing and training on towing
vessels while holding a license as limited master of towing vessels of
3,000 horsepower or less and pass a partial examination.
(c) For a license as mate (pilot) of towing vessels of 3,000
horsepower or less endorsed for a restricted local area, an applicant
shall--
(1) Have 24 months of total service including 6 months of service
on deck of a towing vessel of 8 meters (about 26 feet) or over in
length as limited apprentice mate (steersman) of towing vessels; and
(2) Submit either--
(i) A certificate of completion from a Coast-Guard-approved course
as specified in paragraph (f) of this section; or
(ii) Evidence of assessment of practical demonstration of skills,
in the form of a training- and assessment-record book in accordance
with Sec. 10.304(e);
(d) The holder of a license as mate of self-propelled vessels of
greater than 200 gross tons may obtain an endorsement for towing
vessels (restricted to the horsepower of the service presented) if he
or she--
(1) Has 30 days of training and observation on towing vessels on
each route for which the endorsement is requested;
(2) Submits evidence of assessment of practical demonstration of
skills, in the form of a training- and assessment-record book in
accordance with Sec. 10.304(e); and
(3) Passes an examination.
(e) The holder of a license as mate (pilot) of towing vessels may
have that license endorsed as apprentice mate (steersman) for a route
not included in the current endorsements on which he or she has no
operating experience after passing an examination for that route. Upon
completion of 3 months of experience in that route, he or she may have
the apprentice mate (steersman) restriction removed.
(f) An approved training course for mate (pilot) of towing vessels
must include formal instruction and practical demonstration of
proficiency either on board a towing vessel or at a shoreside training
facility before a designated examiner, and must cover--
(1) Shipboard management and training;
(2) Seamanship;
(3) Navigation;
(4) Watchkeeping;
(5) Radar;
(6) Meteorology;
(7) Maneuvering and handling of towing vessels;
(8) Engine-room basics; and
(9) Emergency procedures.
23. Redesignate section 10.466 as Sec. 10.467 and add a new
Sec. 10.466 to read as follows:
Sec. 10.466 Service for apprentice mate (steersman) of towing vessels.
(a) For a license as apprentice mate (steersman) of towing vessels,
an applicant shall--
(1) Have 18 months of service on deck including 12 months on towing
vessels;
(2) Pass the examination specified in subpart I of this part; and
(3) Have 3 months of the 18 months on the particular route for
which application is made.
(b) For a license as limited apprentice mate (steersman) of towing
vessels, an applicant shall--
(1) Have 18 months of service on deck including 12 months on towing
vessels;
(2) Pass a limited examination; and
(3) Have 3 months of the 18 months on the particular route for
which application is made.
(c) The holder of a license as apprentice mate (steersman) of
towing vessels may have that license endorsed as limited apprentice
mate (steersman) for a route not included in the current endorsements
on which he or she has no operating experience, upon passing an
examination for that route. Upon completion of 3 months of experience
in that route, he or she may have the limited apprentice mate
(steersman) restriction removed.
[[Page 31347]]
24. In Sec. 10.482, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 10.482 Assistance towing.
(a) This section contains the requirements to qualify for an
endorsement authorizing an applicant to engage in assistance towing.
The endorsement applies to all licenses except those for master and
mate (pilot) of towing vessels and those authorizing service on
inspected vessels over 200 gross tons. Holders of any of these licenses
may engage in assistance towing within the scope of the licenses and
without the endorsement.
* * * * *
Sec. 10.701 [Amended]
25. In Sec. 10.701(a), remove the words ``operator of uninspected
towing vessels'' and add, in their place, the words ``master or mate
(pilot) of towing vessels''.
Sec. 10.703 [Amended]
26. In Sec. 10.703(a) introductory text, remove the words
``operator of uninspected towing vessels'' and add, in their place, the
words ``master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels''.
Sec. 10.901 [Amended]
27. In Sec. 10.901(b)(1), remove the words ``uninspected towing
vessels'' and add, in their place, the words ``master or mate (pilot)
of towing vessels''.
28. In Sec. 10.903, revise paragraphs (a)(18) and (b)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 10.903 Licenses requiring examinations.
(a) * * *
(18) Apprentice mate (steersman) of towing vessels;
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Master or mate (pilot) of towing vessels (endorsed for the same
route).
29. In Sec. 10.910, amend the introductory language to Table
10.910-1 by revising paragraphs 10 through 12 to read as follows:
Sec. 10.910 Subjects for deck incenses.
* * * * *
10. Apprentice mate, towing vessels, Oceans (domestic trade) and
Near-coastal routes.
11. Apprentice mate (steersman), towing vessels, Great Lakes and
inland routes.
12. Steersman, towing vessels, Western rivers.
* * * * *
PART 15--MANNING REQUIREMENTS
30. Revise the authority citation for part 15 to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3703, 8101, 8502, 8901, 8902, 8903,
8904, 9102; 50 U.S.C. 198; and 49 CFR 1.46.
Sec. 15.301 [Amended]
31. In Sec. 15.301(b), remove paragraph (6); and redesignate
paragraphs (7) through (10) as paragraphs (6) through (9).
32. Revise section 15.610 to read as follows:
Sec. 15.610 Masters and mates (pilots) of towing vessels.
Every towing vessel at least 8 meters (about 26 feet) in length
measured from end to end over the deck (excluding sheer), except a
vessel described by the next sentence, must be under the direction and
control of a person licensed as master or mate (pilot) of towing
vessels or as master or mate of appropriate gross tonnage holding an
endorsement of his or her license for towing vessels. This does not
apply to any vessel engaged in assistance towing or any vessel of less
than 200 gross tons engaged in the offshore mineral and oil industry if
the vessel has sites or equipment of that industry as its place of
departure or ultimate destination.
Sec. 15.705 [Amended]
33. In Sec. 15.705(d), remove the words ``individual operating an
uninspected towing vessel'' and add, in their place, the words ``master
or mate (pilot) operating a towing vessel''; and remove the words
``individuals serving as operators of uninspected towing vessels'' and
add, in their place, the words ``masters or mates (pilots) serving as
operators of towing vessels''.
34. In Sec. 15.805, add paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 15.805 Master.
(a) * * *
(5) Every towing vessel of 8 meters (about 26 feet) or more in
length.
* * * * *
35. In Sec. 15.810, redesignate paragraphs (d) and (e) as (e) and
(f); and add a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 15.810 Mates.
* * * * *
(d) A person in charge of the navigation or maneuvering of a towing
vessel of 8 meters (about 26 feet) or more in length shall hold either
a license authorizing service as mate of towing vessels--or, on inland
routes, as pilot of towing vessels--or a license as master of
appropriate gross tonnage or horsepower, according to the routes,
endorsed for towing vessels.
* * * * *
36. Revise section 15.910 to read as follows:
Sec. 15.910 Towing vessels.
No person may serve as master or mate (pilot) of any towing vessel
of 8 meters (about 26 feet) or more in length unless he or she holds a
license explicitly authorizing such service.
Dated: June 11, 1996.
J.C. Card,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Marine Safety and Environmental
Protection.
[FR Doc. 96-15346 Filed 6-18-96; 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.