issue-1996-01-10•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-01-10
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-01-10
issue-1996-01-10Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-01-10Proposed 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. 96-354 Conformance of Lights on Artificial Islands and Fixes Structures, and Other Facilities to IALA Standards
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 708-709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-354]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 67
[CGD 95-052]
RIN 2115-AF15
Conformance of Lights on Artificial Islands and Fixes Structures,
and Other Facilities to IALA Standards
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In keeping with the National Performance Review, the Coast
Guard is reviewing its requirements for lights on artificial islands
and fixed structures (such as oil rigs) and other facilities to bring
them into conformance with the International Association of Lighthouse
Authorities (IALA) standards. Also, the Coast Guard is reviewing its
approval procedures and considering requiring manufacturers to have
lighting equipment and fog signal emitters tested by independent
laboratories. Adopting the IALA standards may enhance maritime safety
by conforming to lighting standards which are easier for the mariner to
understand. After consideration of the comments received, the Coast
Guard may initiate a rulemaking project.
DATES: Comments are requested by February 9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine
Safety Council (G-LRA/3406) (CGD 95-052), U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-001, 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.
The Executive Secretary maintains the public docket for this
request for comments. 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:
LTJG Chad Asplund, Short Range Aids to Navigation Division, Telephone:
(202) 267-1386.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this request for comments by submitting written data, views, or
arguments. Persons submitting comments should include their names and
addresses, identify this notice (CGD 95-052) and the specific section
of this notice 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 enclosed stamped, self-addressed postcards
or envelopes.
Background and Purpose
In keeping with the National Performance Review, the Coast Guard is
reviewing its standards for lighting equipment presently required on
artificial islands, fixed structures, and other facilities. The Coast
Guard is considering bringing the lighting standards into conformance
with the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities (IALA)
standards. In 1982, the United States, along with most of the world's
other maritime nations, became a party to the agreement that
established the IALA Maritime Buoyage
[[Page 709]]
System (MBS). In 1985, the United States began harmonizing the United
States Aids to Navigation System (USATONS) with the MBS.
If the standards of IALA are adopted, the current candlepower for
these lights would be revised to an ``area specific'' standard. These
lights would still have to be visible for 90 percent of the nights of
the year. The Coast Guard is also considering standardizing the
approval procedures for optical and audio equipment for fog signal
emitters.
Presently, under 33 CFR part 67, all artificial islands and
structures erected on or over the seabed and subsoil of the outer
continental shelf (OCS) are marked as private aids to navigation. The
obstruction lights prescribed are either a white or red, quick-
flashing, all-around light, depending on structure classification and
background lighting. Multiple obstruction lights are required to flash
in unison.
The IALA standards define a quick-flashing, white light as a north
cardinal mark. The present private aid system may be misleading to the
mariner accustomed to the IALA system. The mariner accustomed to using
a white, quick-flashing light as a cardinal mark might mistake a
structure which is not a cardinal mark for a cardinal mark. To conform
with IALA, each structure would retain the red or white light, but
display a Morse code ``U'' (..-) rather than the quick flashing light.
Current regulations in 33 CFR part 67, subpart 67.05 require that
lights be of sufficient candlepower so as to be visible for a
prescribed distance, corresponding to the structure's class, 90 percent
of the nights of the year. Certain geographic regions have
environmental conditions that preclude lights from meeting the above
standard. The new standards might divide the country into separate
regions to allow for differences in transmissivity and its effects on
the range of visibility. For example, one region might include the
First, Ninth, and Eleventh Coast Guard Districts, while the other
region might include the remaining districts.
The existing procedure in 33 CFR 67.05-10 that regulates lighting
equipment states that manufacturers of lights must have their equipment
approved by the District Commander and a permit must be issued before
the equipment can be distributed. This procedure might be changed to
require an independent laboratory to conduct the test. If so, the
manufacturer would then forward the results to Commandant (G-NSR), U.S.
Coast Guard, 2100 2nd Street SW., Washington, D.C., 20593, for review.
Cost Information
The Coast Guard is seeking additional information on the cost that
could be associated with this project. Presently, the Coast Guard is
consulting with Automatic Power Incorporated, Tideland Signal
Corporation, and Sea Nav Corporation in an effort to estimate the
economic impact that this project could have on manufacturers and
users. The Coast Guard specifically requests comments from laboratories
which conduct tests of lighting systems and fog signal emitters covered
by part 67 regarding the costs of approvals.
Solicitation of Views
The Coast Guard solicits comments from all segments of the marine
community and other interested persons on these suggestions and
recommended alternatives related to obstruction lighting on artificial
islands, fixed structures, and other facilities. The Coast Guard is
particularly interested in receiving information, views, data, and
reasons on the following questions and areas of concern:
1. Should these lights be changed to conform to IALA standards?
Should the lights be charged to Morse ``U'' in accordance with IALA
standards, or with another configuration?
2. Should Class ``C'' structures be required to conform to IALA?
3. Should fog signal and light inspection procedures be changed?
Should the equipment approval procedures be changed to require
testing by independent laboratories with results then forwarded to the
Coast Guard?
Would such a change increase or decrease costs and compliance time?
4. What other factors should be considered in light of this
proposed change?
Is there any other information that you feel may be helpful in
implementing this change with less impact on the affected persons?
Dated: January 3, 1996.
J.A. Creech,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Chief, Office of Navigation Safety
and Waterway Services.
[FR Doc. 96-354 Filed 1-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-353 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Anacostia River, Washington, DC
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 709-710]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-353]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD05-95-081]
RIN 2115-AE47
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Anacostia River, Washington, DC
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: At the request of the Consolidated Rail Corporation (CONRAIL),
the Coast Guard is proposing to change the regulations that govern the
operation of the railroad bridge across the Anacostia River, mile 3.4,
at Washington, DC. This proposal would change the current schedule by
extending the winter seasonal restrictions and reducing the hours of
operation during the boating season.
These changes to the drawbridge regulations are intended to relieve
the bridge owner of the burden of having a bridgetender staff the
bridge during periods of non-use, while still providing for the
reasonable needs of navigation.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Commander (ob), Fifth Coast Guard
District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004, or may
be delivered to Room 109 at the same address between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
(804) 398-6222. Comments will become part of this docket and will be
available for inspection at Room 109, Fifth Coast Guard District.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ann B. Deaton, Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, at
(804) 398-6222.
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 (CGD05-95-081) and the specific section of
this proposal to which each comment applies, and give the reason for
each comment. The Coast Guard requests that all comments and
attachments be submitted in an unbound format suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If not practical, a second copy of any bound
material is requested. Persons wanting acknowledgement of receipt of
comments should enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the
comment period. It may change this proposal in view of the comments.
The Coast Guard plans no public hearing. Persons may request a
public hearing by writing to the Commander (ob) at the address under
ADDRESSES. The request should include reasons why
[[Page 710]]
a hearing would be beneficial. If it determines that the opportunity
for oral presentations will aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard will
hold a public hearing at a time and place announced by a later notice
in the Federal Register.
Drafting Information
The principal persons involved in drafting this document are Linda
L. Gilliam, Project Manager, Bridge Administration Section, and CDR
T.R. Cahill, Project Counsel, Fifth Coast Guard District Legal Office.
Background and Purposes
The current regulations found at 33 CFR 117.253 provide that the
draw of the CONRAIL bridge, mile 3.4, on the Anacostia River, shall
open on signal on Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal Holidays from April 1
through September 30; between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. on weekdays that are
not Federal Holidays from April 1 through September 30; and on eight
hours notice at all other times. CONRAIL has requested that 33 CFR
117.253 be amended to reduce the periods during which it must open the
bridge on signal. In support of its request, CONRAIL contends that its
records show that the period of heavy boating traffic is from May 15
through September 15, not April 1 through September 30 as provided in
the current regulations. CONRAIL has also asked that the hours during
which the bridge must open on signal be reduced, and that the same
schedule be adopted for both weekdays and weekends.
The Coast Guard has reviewed CONRAIL's bridge logs for 1993 and
1994, copies of which are available for inspection at Room 10-9, Fifth
Coast Guard District. According to the logs for 1993 and 1994, the
railroad bridge only opened a total of 11 times from April 1 through
May 15, and 6 times between September 15 through September 30. For 1993
and 1994 during the weekdays, the bridge opened 10 times between noon
and 1 p.m.; 4 times between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m.; and 5 times after 7 p.m.
During 1993 and 1994 on the weekends, the bridge opened 9 times between
7 p.m. and 9 a.m.
Based on the above information, the Coast Guard is proposing
changes to 33 CFR 117.253. The proposed changes would require the
bridge to open on signal between 9 a.m. and 12 noon and between 1 p.m.
and 6 p.m. every day from May 15 through September 30. The bridge would
also open on signal between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. every day from May 15
through September 30 if notice is given to the bridgetender prior to 6
p.m. on the day for which the opening is requested. Requirements would
be the same for both weekend and weekday openings. The bridge will
continue to open on eight hours notice at all other times.
As discussed above, openings have been infrequent during the
periods which would be affected by these proposed changes. The Coast
Guard believes that these proposed changes will relieve CONRAIL of the
burden of requiring a bridgetender to be on duty during periods of
little or no vessel traffic while not unduly restricting navigation.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed action is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that order. It has been exempted from review by the Office of
Management and Budget under that order. It is not significant under the
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation
(DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the
economic impact of this proposal to be so minimal that a full
Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies
and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this proposal, if adopted, will have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. ``Small entities'' include independently owned and operated
small businesses that are not dominant in their field and that
otherwise qualify as ``small business concerns'' under section 3 of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632). Because it expects the impact of
this proposal to be minimal, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this proposal, if adopted, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Collection of Information
This proposal contains no collection of information requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposal under the principals and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has determined that
this proposal will 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 section 2.B.2.e.(32)(e) of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1B (as amended, 59 FR 38654, 29 July 1994), this
proposal is categorically excluded from further environmental
documentation. A Categorical Exclusion Determination statement has been
prepared and placed in the rulemaking docket.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
Proposed Regulations
In consideration of the foregoing, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend Part 117 of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations to read as
follows:
PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 117 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Section
117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106
Stat. 5039.
2. In Sec. 117.253, paragraphs (b)(1) (ii) and (iii) are revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 117.253 Anacostia River.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) Between 9 a.m. and 12 noon and between 1 p.m. and 6 p.m. from
May 15 through September 30.
(iii) Between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. from May 15 through September 30 if
notice is given to the bridgetender not later than 6 p.m. on the day
for which the opening is requested.
* * * * *
Dated: December 21, 1995.
W.J. Ecker,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 96-353 Filed 1-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-345 New England Fishery Management Council; Modification of Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 710-711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-345]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 651
[I.D. 010496C]
New England Fishery Management Council; Modification of Meeting
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
[[Page 711]]
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Modification of public meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS previously announced a public meeting (60 FR 67116,
December 28, 1995) of the New England Fishery Management Council for 2
days to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the
exclusive economic zone. This modification announces that only the
Groundfish Committee of the New England Fishery Management Council will
be meeting.
DATES: The meeting will begin on Wednesday, January 10, 1996, at 10
a.m. and on Thursday, January 11, 1996, at 8:30 a.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Tara's Ferncroft Conference
Resort and Hotel, 50 Ferncroft Road, Danvers, MA; telephone: (508) 277-
2500.
Requests for special accommodations should be addressed to the New
England Fishery Management Council, 5 Broadway, Saugus, MA 01906-1097;
telephone: (617) 231-0422.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas G. Marshall, Executive
Director, (617) 231-0422.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The January 10-11 meeting is being convened
specifically to address the remaining groundfish issues that relate to
finalizing draft Amendment 7 to the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish)
Fishery Management Plan. The intent of this amendment is to implement
measures to rebuild severely overfished stocks, with particular
emphasis on cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder. If time allows, the
Committee may consider other relevant business.
Special Accommodations
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities.
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids
should be directed to Douglas G. Marshall (see ADDRESSES) at least 5
days prior to the meeting date.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: January 4, 1996.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-345 Filed 1-5-96; 11:44 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-340 Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Nondiscriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities; Notice of Technical Conference and Potential Broadcast of Technical Conference Concerning Independent System Operators and Reform of Power Pools Under the Federal Power Act
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 705-706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-340]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
18 CFR Part 35
[Docket Nos. RM95-8-000 and RM94-7-001]
Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access
Nondiscriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery
of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities;
Notice of Technical Conference and Potential Broadcast of Technical
Conference Concerning Independent System Operators and Reform of Power
Pools Under the Federal Power Act
January 4, 1996.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of Technical Conference and Potential Broadcast of
Technical Conference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) notifies
interested persons that it will hold a technical conference regarding
independent system operators (ISOs) and power pools on January 24,
1996, at 9:30 A.M. The Commission has invited specific persons with
technical expertise to participate in the conference. Their names, and
an agenda for the conference, are attached. This notice also provides
interested persons with the necessary information by which they may
seek to receive the broadcast of the conference.
DATES: Persons interested in receiving the broadcast of the conference
for a fee must notify Shirley Al-Jarani or Julia Morelli at the Capitol
Connection (703-993-3100) by January 10, 1996. The conference will be
held on January 24, 1996, at 9:30 A.M.
ADDRESSES: The conference will be held at the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen A. Tomcala (Legal Issues), Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.
20426, (202) 208-0464
Carolyn A. Berry (Technical Issues), Office of Economic Policy, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.
20426, (202) 208-2227
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In addition to publishing the full text of
this document in the Federal Register, the Commission also provides all
interested persons an opportunity to inspect or copy the contents of
this document during normal business hours in the Public Reference Room
at 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
The Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS), an electronic
bulletin board service, provides access to the text of formal documents
issued by the Commission. CIPS is available at no charge to the user
and may be accessed using a personal computer with a modem by dialing
(800) 856-3920 or (202) 208-1397 if dialing locally. To access CIPS,
set your communications software to 19200, 14400, 12000, 9600, 7200,
4800, 2400, or 1200 bps, full duplex, no parity, 8 data bits and 1 stop
bit. The full text of this document will be available on CIPS in ASCII
and WordPerfect 5.1 format. The complete text on diskette in
WordPerfect format may also be purchased from the Commission's copy
contractor, La Dorn Systems Corporation, also located in the Public
Reference Room at 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
At the Commission's technical conference on comparability for power
pools held December 5 and 6, 1995, several speakers described proposals
for developing independent system operators (ISOs) as one method to
address full competition and comply with the Commission's open access
and comparability requirements.\1\ Power pools considering the
formation of ISOs include PJM, NEPOOL and NYPP.
\1\ See Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-
discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery
of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 60 FR 17662 (April 7, 1995), IV FERC Stats. & Regs.
para. 32,514 (1995) (Open Access Proceeding).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To follow up on the issues raised during the December technical
conference, the Commission will hold a
[[Page 706]]
technical conference on issues relating to ISOs and power pools on
January 24, 1996, beginning at 9:30 a.m. The speakers for the technical
conference are:
Panel One
Hon. William Daniel Fessler, President, California Public Utilities
Commission (invited)
John Rowe, President and CEO, New England Electric System
Paul Joskow, MITSUI Professor of Economics and Management,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Steven J. Kean, Vice President, Enron Power Marketing, Inc.
J. Leroy Thilly, General Manager & Counsel, Wisconsin Public Power,
Inc.
Panel Two
E. Linn Draper, Jr., Chairman, President and CEO, American Electric
Power Company
William W. Hogan, Thorton Bradshaw Professor of Public Policy &
Management, Harvard University
Alan Richardson, Executive Director, American Public Power Association
Jeanine Hull, Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, LG&E Power
Inc.
Steven Walton, P.E., Manager, Transmission Policy & Pricing, Pacificorp
The conference will be held at the Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
The purpose of the technical conference is threefold. First, the
Commission expects the participants to help us define the essential
elements and operational characteristics of an ISO.
Second, the Commission wishes to explore the development of
principles that should be applied in reforming power pools, including
evaluating ISO proposals by power pools, to ensure that they are not
unduly discriminatory under the Federal Power Act. The Commission is
particularly interested in exploring whether the creation of ISOs is
necessary to ensure comparability of transmission service by power
pools.
Third, the Commission is aware that public utilities that are not
members of power pools also are considering the formation of ISOs. The
Commission is interested in exploring the development of criteria for
evaluating these types of ISO proposals as well. As is the case with
power pools, the Commission is interested in whether ISOs are necessary
to ensure comparability for public utilities that are not members of
power pools.
Broadcast of Technical Conference
If there is sufficient interest, the Capitol Connection may
broadcast the technical conference on January 24, 1996, to interested
persons. Persons interested in receiving the broadcast for a fee should
contact Shirley Al-Jarani or Julia Morelli at the Capitol Connection
(703-993-3100) no later than January 10, 1996.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-340 Filed 1-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-303 Regulations for the Relicensing of Hydroelectric Projects
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 10, 1996)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 705] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 96-303] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Chapter I [Docket No. RM95-16-000] Regulations for the Relicensing of Hydroelectric Projects January 4, 1996. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE. ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; extension of time. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: On October 31, 1995, the Commission issued a notice of National Hydropower Association's (NHA) petition for rulemaking in the above-captioned docket (60 FR 56278, November 8, 1995). Certain departments and agencies of the Federal Government are presently closed for all but emergency matters due to a lack of appropriated funds. The Commission anticipates that a number of these agencies may wish to file comments on the petition. In order to accommodate this unusual circumstance, notice is hereby given that an extension of time is granted. DATES: Initial comments by all parties shall be filed on or before February 5, 1996. Reply comments shall be due on or before March 4, 1996. ADDRESSES: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barry Smoler, Office of the General Counsel, (202) 208-1269. Lois D. Cashell, Secretary. [FR Doc. 96-303 Filed 1-9-96; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-298 Extension of the Paso Robles Viticultural Area
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 706-708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-298]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
27 CFR Part 9
[Notice No. 818]
RIN 1512-AA07
Extension of the Paso Robles Viticultural Area
AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), Department of
the Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the extension of the western border of
the Paso Robles viticultural area in San Luis Obispo County,
California. The Paso Robles viticultural area was originally approved
in Treasury Decision ATF-148, 48 FR 45241, October 4, 1983 (27 CFR
9.84). The petition was initially submitted by Justin C. Baldwin and
more recently re-submitted by July Ackerman, Executive Director, Paso
Robles Vintners and Growers Association as spokesperson for the seven
vineyards and one winery within the proposed new border.
ATF believes the establishment of American viticultural areas and
their subsequent use as appellations of origin in wine labeling and
advertising allows wineries to better designate the specific grape-
growing area where their wines come from and allows consumers to better
identify the wines they purchase.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be addressed to: Chief, Wine, Beer, and
Spirits Regulations Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
P.O. Box 50221, Washington, DC 20226 (Notice No. 818). Copies of the
petition, the proposed regulations, the appropriate maps, and any
written comments received will be available for public inspection
during normal business hours at: ATF Reading Room, Office of Public
Affairs and Disclosure, Room 6480, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Lou Blake, Wine, Beer, and
Spirits Regulations Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
650 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20226 (202-927-8210).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 23, 1978, ATF published Treasury Decision ATF-53 (43 FR
37672, 54624) revising regulations in 27 CFR Part 4. These regulations
allow the establishment of definitive American viticultural areas. The
regulations allow the name of an approved viticultural area to be used
as an appellation of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements.
On October 2, 1979, ATF published Treasury Decision ATF-60 (44 FR
56692) which added a new Part 9 to 27 CFR, for the listing of approved
American viticultural areas.
Section 4.25a(e)(1), Title 27 CFR, defines an American viticultural
area as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by
geographical features, the boundaries of which have been delineated in
Subpart C of Part 9.
Section 4.25a(e)(2) outlines the procedure for proposing an
American viticultural area. Any interested person may petition ATF to
establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. The petition
should include:
(a) Evidence that the name of the proposed viticultural area is
locally and/or nationally known as referring to the area specified in
the petition;
(b) Historical or current evidence that the boundaries of the
viticultural area are as specified in the petition;
(c) Evidence relating to the geographical features (climate, soil,
elevation, physical features, etc.) which distinguish the viticultural
features of the proposed area from surrounding areas;
(d) A description of the specific boundaries of the viticultural
area, based on the features which can be found on United States
Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) maps of the largest applicable scale; and
(e) A copy of the appropriate U.S.G.S. map with the boundaries
prominently marked.
Petition
The original petition to extend the western border of the Paso
Robles viticultural area was filed in July 1993,
[[Page 707]]
by Justin C. Baldwin as spokesperson for his own vineyard and winery
and for five other wineries in the area. All of the vineyards and the
winery, which are located outside the western border of the current
Paso Robles viticultural area, were established after the original Paso
Robles viticultural area was approved. At the time Mr. Baldwin
submitted his petition additional information was still needed to
complete the petition. Until the additional information could be
obtained, the original petition was returned to Mr. Baldwin.
July Ackerman, Executive Director of the Paso Robles Vintners and
Growers Association, later resubmitted the petition in December 1994.
Ms. Ackerman, in her official role as Executive Director, along with
members of the Paso Robles Vintners and Growers Association, support
the proposed extension. The petition also includes the names of 71
people in the grape and wine industries who support the proposed
expansion area.
Ms. Ackerman states the proposed expansion area has always been
considered a part of the Paso Robles Wine Country. In fact, the
petition notes that the proposed expansion area was included in the
original petition but was removed due to a petition involving a
contiguous area. The proposed expansion area is between the boundaries
set forth in these two petitions. In 1989 the Paso Robles Chamber of
Commerce published ``A History and Tour Guide of the Paso Robles Wine
Country.'' Included in this publication was one of the vineyards and
wineries located in the proposed expansion area. As noted, the proposed
expansion area was also originally included in the petition for the
current Paso Robles viticultural area. However, a concurrent petition
was being considered for the York Mountain viticultural area and to
prevent any intrusion into York Mountain the petitioner for Paso Robles
amended the southwestern border. At the same time, the western boundary
was amended to begin at the next most eastern range line. At the time
of this amendment, no vineyards had been established in the area beyond
the amended western boundary.
The area under petition will expand the western border of the
current Paso Robles viticultural area while continuing to maintain a
southwestern border adjacent to York Mountain's northern border. This
expansion would add approximately 52,618 acres to the existing
viticultural area. Since the final rule for the Paso Robles
viticultural area was published in 1983, seven vineyards have been
planted in the proposed expansion area.
Historical and Current Evidence
The name of the area comes from the Spanish name ``El Paso de
Robles'' (meaning ``the Pass of the Oaks''), which was given to the
area by travelers between the missions of San Miguel and San Luis
Obispo. A land grant, in this name, was conveyed by Governor
Micheltorena to Pedro Narvaez on May 12, 1844. This land grant included
the present area of Paso Robles, Templeton, and Adelaida.
Historically, the Santa Lucia Mountain range has been known as the
western border of the Paso Robles area. All seven of the vineyards
planted since 1983 are located east of the Santa Lucia Mountain Range,
just beyond the western border of the current Paso Robles Viticultural
area and north of the York Mountain viticultural area.
In addition, the proposed expansion area contains the same
telephone number prefixes and post office zip codes as the existing
viticultural area. Further, the proposed expansion area utilizes the
same government services (i.e. schools, fire departments, etc.) as the
existing viticultural area.
Geographical Evidence
The petitioner provided geographical evidence derived from the
``Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, California''--Paso Robles
Area. This survey was a cooperative effort of the Soil Conservation
Service and the University of California Agriculture Experiment
Station. Petitioner's data also reflects information collected from
airports, forestry stations, city and county historical records and
individual agriculturalists.
The proposed expansion area is characterized by rolling hills, 750
feet to 1800 feet, similar to the current Paso Robles appellation and
unlike the more mountainous area of York Mountain. Soils generally
consist of Nacimiento Ayar, Nacimento Los Osos Balcom Series and Linne-
Calodo Series, three of the four soil types found in the current
appellation.
Temperatures in the proposed expansion area are the same as the
current appellation, ranging between 20-110 degrees Fahrenheit.
Rainfall in the current appellation is between 10 and 25 inches per
year. The proposed expansion area averages 25 inches per year
maintaining a similarity with the current appellation and less than the
45 inches per year within the York Mountain Viticultural Area. Degree
days of 2500--3500 are also the same for both the current appellation
and the proposed expansion area.
Proposed Boundaries
The proposed boundaries for the expansion of the Paso Robles
viticultural area use range and township lines, the county line and
other points of reference. These same features are used as boundaries
for the existing Paso Robles viticultural area.
The points of reference for the boundaries of the current
viticultural area and the proposed expansion area are found on United
States Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) map entitled ``San Luis Obispo,''
scale 1:250,000 (1956, revised 1969).
Paperwork Reduction Act
The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-
511, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part
1320, do not apply to this notice of proposed rulemaking because no
requirement to collect information is proposed.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
It is hereby certified that this proposed regulation will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The establishment of a viticultural area is neither an
endorsement nor approval by ATF of the quality of wine produced in the
area, but rather an identification of an area that is distinct from
surrounding areas. ATF believes that the establishment of viticultural
areas merely allows wineries to describe more accurately the origin of
their wines to consumers, and helps consumers identify the wines they
purchase. Thus, any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area
name is the result of the proprietor's own efforts and consumer
acceptance of wines from that region.
Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required
because the proposal, if promulgated as a final rule, is not expected
(1) to have significant secondary or incidental effects on a
substantial number of small entities; or (2) to impose, or otherwise
cause a significant increase in the reporting, recordkeeping, or other
compliance burdens on a substantial number of small entities.
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this proposed regulation is not a
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, this proposal is not subject to the analysis required by
this Executive Order.
[[Page 708]]
Public Participation
ATF requests comments from all interested parties. Comments
received on or before the closing date will be carefully considered.
Comments received after that date will be given the same consideration
if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be
given except as to comments received on or before the closing date.
ATF will not recognize any comment as confidential. Comments may be
disclosed to the public. Any material which a commenter considers to be
confidential or inappropriate for disclosure to the public should not
be included in the comment. The name of the person submitting a comment
is not exempt from disclosure. During the comment period, any person
may request an opportunity to present oral testimony at a public
hearing. However, the Director reserves the right to determine, in
light of all circumstances, whether a public hearing will be held.
Drafting Information
The principal author of this document is Mary Lou Blake, Wine,
Beer, and Spirits Regulations Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms.
List of Subject in 27 CFR Part 9
Administrative practices and procedures, Consumer protection,
Viticultural areas, and Wine.
Authority and Issuance
Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 9, American
Viticultural Areas, is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for Part 9 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
* * * * *
Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas
Par. 2. Section 9.84(c) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 9.84 Paso Robles.
* * * * *
(c) Boundaries. The Paso Robles viticultural area is located within
San Luis Obispo County, California. From the point of beginning where
the county lines of San Luis Obispo, Kings and Kern Counties converge,
the county line also being the township line between T.24S. and T.25S.,
in R.16E.:
(1) Then in a westerly direction along this county line for 42
miles to the range line between R.9E. and R.10E.;
(2) Then in a southerly direction for 12 miles along the range line
to the southwest of corner of T.26S. and R.10E.;
(3) Then in a southeasterly direction, approximately 5.5 miles to a
point of intersection of the Dover Canyon Jeep Trail and Dover Canyon
Road;
(4) Then in an easterly direction along Dover Canyon Road,
approximately 1.5 miles, to the western border line of Rancho Paso de
Robles;
(5) Then, following the border of the Paso Robles land grant,
beginning in an easterly direction, to a point where it intersects the
range line between R.11E. and R.12E.;
(6) Then southeasterly for approximately 16.5 miles to the point of
intersection of the township line between T.29S. and T.30S. and the
range line between R.12E. and R.13E.;
(7) Then in an easterly direction for approximately 6 miles to the
range line between R.13E. and R.14E.;
(8) Then in a northerly direction for approximately 6 miles to the
township line between T.28S. and T.29S.;
(9) Then in an easterly direction for approximately 18 miles to the
range line between R.16E. and R.17E.;
(10) Then in a northerly direction for approximately 24 miles to
the point of beginning.
Dated: December 29, 1995.
Daniel R. Black,
Acting Director.
[FR Doc. 96-298 Filed 1-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-326 Agreements for the Development of Foreign Markets for Agricultural Commodities
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 704-705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-326]
========================================================================
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. 7 / Wednesday, January 10, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 704]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Commodity Credit Corporation
7 CFR Part 1485
Agreements for the Development of Foreign Markets for
Agricultural Commodities
AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is proposing to amend
its regulations implementing the Market Promotion Program (MPP)
authorized by Section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, 7
U.S.C. 5623. Specifically, the proposed rule would extend the period of
time following the expiration of the marketing year during which
participants may pay for approved market development activities and
still be entitled to receive reimbursement from CCC. This period would
be extended from 30 days to 4 months. The proposed rule is part of an
effort by CCC to increase program flexibility and ease administrative
requirements on program participants.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to
the address below by February 9, 1996 to be assured of consideration.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sharon L. McClure, Director, Marketing Operations Staff, Foreign
Agricultural Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 14th and
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1042, (202) 720-5521.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule is issued in conformance with Executive Order
12866. Based on information compiled by the Department, it has been
determined that this proposed rule:
(1) Would have an annual effect on the economy of less than $100
million;
(2) Would not adversely affect in a material way the economy, a
sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities;
(3) Would not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(4) Would not alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; and
(5) Would not raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of
legal mandates, the President's priorities, or principles set forth in
Executive Order 12866.
The Department of Agriculture is committed to carrying out its
statutory and regulatory mandates in a manner that best serves the
public interest. Therefore, where legal discretion permits, the
Department actively seeks to promulgate regulations that promote
economic growth, create jobs, are minimally burdensome and are easy for
the public to understand, use or comply with. In short, the Department
is committed to issuing regulations that maximize net benefits to
society and minimize costs imposed by those regulations.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
It has been determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not
applicable to this proposed rule since CCC is not required by 5 U.S.C.
553 or any other provision of law to publish a notice of rulemaking
with respect to the subject matter of this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed rule does not impose any new reporting or
recordkeeping requirements. The information collection requirements of
participating in the MPP were approved for use by the Office of
Management and Budget under OMB control number 0551-0027.
Executive Order 12372
This proposed rule is not subject to the provisions of Executive
Order 12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation with state
and local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart
V, published at 46 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983).
Executive Order 12778
This proposed rule has been reviewed under the Executive Order
12778, Civil Justice Reform. The proposed rule would have pre-emptive
effect with respect to any state or local laws, regulations, or
policies which conflict with such provisions or which otherwise impede
their full implementation. The proposed rule would not have retroactive
effect. Administrative proceedings are not required before parties may
seek judicial review.
Background
On February 1, 1995, the CCC published final rules at 60 FR 6352
governing the MPP. These new rules were applicable beginning with a
participant's 1995 marketing year. Following publication, CCC
participated with interested parties in five information sessions
designed to familiarize participants with the new regulations and offer
participants an additional opportunity to identify any problem areas.
At these sessions, there was considerable discussion concerning the
requirement that participants must have completely paid for approved
activities not later that 30 days following the end of a participant's
activity plan in order to receive reimbursement, 7 CFR 1485.16(h)(3).
As a result of these discussions, CCC recognized that this requirement
is too restrictive and does not allow sufficient time for a participant
to receive and pay an invoice submitted by a third party, particularly
for those activities that are conducted near the end of an activity
plan year. In addition, the current requirement may, inadvertently,
impose a requirement on participants to prepay invoices. This is not a
practice CCC wishes to endorse since it is not a common business
practice and may also jeopardize the financial integrity of the
program. This proposed rule would amend the current requirement in 7
CFR 1485.16(h) by allowing participants to transfer funds to pay for
activities not later than 4 months following the end of the activity
plan year and still be entitled to receive reimbursement from CCC.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1485
Agricultural commodities, Exports.
[[Page 705]]
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, CCC proposes to amend 7
CFR part 1485 as follows:
PART 1485--AGREEMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF FOREIGN MARKETS FOR
AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES
1. The authority citation for Part 1485 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 5623, 5662-5664 and sec. 1302, Pub. L. 103-
66, 107 Stat. 330.
Subpart B--Market Promotion Program
2. In Sec. 1485.16, paragraph (h) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1485.16 Reimbursement rules.
* * * * *
(h) CCC will reimburse for expenditures made after the conclusion
of participant's activity plan year provided:
(1) The activity was approved prior to the end of the activity plan
year;
(2) The activity was completed within 30 calendar days following
the end of the activity plan year; and
(3) all funds transferred to pay for the activity within 4 months
following the end of the activity plan year.
Signed at Washington, D.C. on December 19, 1995.
Timothy J. Galvin,
Acting Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service and Vice President,
Commodity Credit Corporation.
[FR Doc. 95-326 Filed 1-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-05-M
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.