issue-1996-03-13•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-03-13
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-03-13
issue-1996-03-13Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-03-13Proposed 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. 96-6054 Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Framework for Treaty Tribe Harvest of Pacific Groundfish
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10303-10308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6054]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 663
[Docket No. 960304057-6057-01; I.D. 020596A]
RIN 0648-AH84
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Framework for Treaty Tribe
Harvest of Pacific Groundfish
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule proposes a framework that allows NMFS, acting on
behalf of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), to implement the
rights of the Washington coastal treaty Indian tribes to fish for
groundfish in their usual and accustomed fishing areas (U&A area). The
Secretary requests public comments on the proposed framework and on the
amount of Pacific whiting to be set aside for the Makah Indian Tribe
(Makahs) for 1996 under the provisions of this rule. The intent of this
rule is to accommodate treaty fishing rights.
DATES: Comments will be accepted on or before April 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to William Stelle, Jr., Director,
Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., BIN C15700, Seattle,
WA 98115. Information relevant to this proposed rule is available for
public review during business hours at the Office of the Director,
Northwest Region, NMFS.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William L. Robinson at 206-526-6140.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS is issuing a proposed rule, based on
the agency's authority under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) and the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson Act) to amend the FMP's implementing
regulations to establish a clear procedure for implementing the
Washington coastal treaty Indian tribes' rights to harvest Pacific
groundfish. At the same time, NMFS is seeking public comment on the
amount of Pacific whiting to set aside in 1996 for the Makahs under the
procedures of this rule. For purposes of this rule, Washington coastal
treaty Indian tribes means the Hoh, Makah, and Quileute Indian Tribes
and the Quinault Indian Nation.
Background
The FMP generally acknowledges that certain treaty Indian tribes
have secured rights to harvest fish from their U&A area. However, the
FMP's implementing regulations currently do not explicitly provide a
process by which NMFS can set aside, from the annual harvest guideline
or quota, amounts of Pacific groundfish for exclusive harvest by treaty
Indian tribes. Since 1989 NMFS, at the recommendation of the Pacific
Fishery Management Council (Council), has set aside, through the annual
groundfish management process, a specific amount of sablefish for
harvest by the Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes. In 1992, NMFS first
imposed black rockfish trip limits on commercial hook and line vessels
fishing in certain areas off the Washington coast. The same regulation
created a process for establishing a tribal rockfish harvest guideline
during the annual groundfish management process. Tribal fishermen
fishing under this harvest guideline are not subject to the black
rockfish trip limit.
In June of 1995, the Makahs informed NMFS and the Council that they
would seek to exercise their treaty rights to harvest Pacific whiting,
Merluccius productus. At the August 1995 Council meeting, the Makahs
requested that 25,000 metric tons (mt) of whiting be set aside from the
1996 U.S. harvest guideline for exclusive harvest by the Makahs.
At the October 1995 Council meeting, NMFS and NOAA General Counsel
advised the Council that the Federal Government recognizes that
Washington coastal treaty Indian tribes, by virtue of their treaties
with the United States, have harvest rights to Pacific coast
groundfish.
NMFS believes the Makahs have a treaty right to harvest one-half of
the harvestable surplus of the Pacific whiting stocks found in their
U&A area, in accordance with treaty fishing rights elaborated by a U.S.
District Court in the case United States v. Washington. NMFS believes
that the allocation principles applicable to the tribal treaty right to
Pacific whiting and all other groundfish found in the treaty tribes'
U&A areas are those established in State of Washington v. Washington
State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association, 443 U.S. 658, 99
S.Ct. 3055, 3074 (1979), and Makah Indian Tribe v. Brown, No. C-85-
1606R, and United States v. Washington, Civil No. 9213--Phase I,
Subproceeding No. 92-1 (W.D. Wash., Order on Five Motions Relating to
Treaty Halibut Fishing dated December 29, 1993). Passenger Fishing
Vessel establishes the rule that ``an equitable measure of the common
right would initially divide the harvestable portion of each run that
passes through a `usual and accustomed' place into approximately equal
treaty and non-treaty shares.'' Makah v. Brown held that:
In formulating his allocation decisions, the Secretary must
accord treaty fishers the opportunity to take 50 percent of the
harvestable surplus of halibut in their usual and accustomed fishing
grounds, and the harvestable surplus must be determined according to
the conservation necessity principle.
In the shellfish subproceeding (89-3) in United States v.
Washington, the court found that the right to take fish that was
reserved in the treaties must be read to apply to all fish, without any
species limitation. The court found:
The fact that some species were not taken before treaty time--
either because they were inaccessible or the Indians chose not to
take them--does not mean that their right to take such fish was
limited.
At the October Council meeting, NMFS and NOAA Northwest General
Counsel advised the Council that Indian treaty rights were ``other
applicable law'' under the Magnuson Act that required NMFS to set aside
an amount of whiting for harvest by the Makahs in 1996 consistent with
their treaty rights. NMFS advised the Council that discussions between
NMFS and the Makahs to determine the appropriate amount of whiting to
be set aside in 1996 had not yet been completed, and that some
disagreement between NMFS and the Makahs as to the proper method of
determining the amount still existed. Despite the advice by NMFS and
NOAA Northwest General Counsel, the Council voted 7-4 against
recommending that NOAA/NMFS recognize that the Washington coastal
treaty tribes have treaty rights to Pacific whiting and set aside any
amount of whiting for harvest by the Makahs in 1996. The Council voted
after consideration of testimony from the State of Oregon's Attorney
General's Office that a treaty tribe's right to harvest fish from its
U&A area only exists for those species to which the tribe can show
historical catch or access at the time that the treaty was signed.
NMFS cannot accept the Council's recommendation because it is
contrary to treaty fishing rights law. Consequently, NMFS proposes to
[[Page 10304]]
amend the FMP's implementing regulations to provide a framework process
by which NMFS can accommodate treaty rights by setting aside specific
amounts of Pacific groundfish for harvest by the treaty Indian tribes
or by implementing regulations to otherwise accommodate treaty rights.
At the same time, NMFS proposes to modify the groundfish regulations as
described below to consolidate regulations affecting treaty Indian
fishing into one section and to accommodate the treaty trawl harvest of
midwater groundfish species. In addition, NMFS seeks public comment on
the amount of Pacific whiting it will set aside for exclusive harvest
by the Makahs in 1996.
When the Council considered the Makahs' request, the combined
United States and Canada coastwide acceptable biological catch (ABC)
was projected to be 123,000 mt. During the last few years, the U.S.
harvest guideline was 80 percent of the combined ABC. Based on the
projected U.S. and Canadian combined ABC of 123,000 mt, the U.S.
harvest guideline was projected to be 98,400 mt. In late January,
during the preparation of this proposed rule, a new whiting stock
assessment, based on the 1995 NMFS hydroacoustic survey, was completed
which resulted in the projected ABC for both the United States and
Canada increasing to at least 250,000 mt and possibly as high as
350,000 mt. At 80 percent of the combined ABC, the U.S. harvest
guideline now would increase to at least 200,000 mt and possibly as
high as 280,000 mt. At its March 11-15, 1996, meeting in Portland, OR,
the Council will recommend the level for a U.S. harvest guideline.
Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would be implemented under authority of Section
305(d) of the Magnuson Act, which gives the Secretary responsibility to
``carry out any fishery management plan or amendment approved or
prepared by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Act.'' With
this proposed rule, NMFS, acting on behalf of the Secretary, would
ensure that the FMP is implemented in a manner consistent with treaty
rights of four Northwest tribes to fish in their ``usual and accustomed
grounds and stations'' in common with non-tribal citizens. United
States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 313 (W.D. 1974).
Under the framework to be established by this proposed rule, NMFS
would be able to accommodate the rights of the treaty tribes to fish
for groundfish in their U&A area by setting aside appropriate amounts
of fish through the framework process for setting annual harvest
specifications or by means of specific regulations. The framework
process would be initiated by a request to NMFS for a set-aside or
regulations from one or more Washington coastal treaty Indian tribes
prior to the first of the two annual groundfish meetings of the
Council. NMFS would consider the tribal requests, recommendations from
the Council, and comments of the public, and would determine the amount
of the set-aside for each species or the appropriate regulatory
language. NMFS would announce the tribal set-asides in the Federal
Register when the annual harvest and allocation specifications for the
groundfish fishery are announced. Tribal groundfish set-asides would be
managed by the tribes.
The proposed rule also describes the physical boundaries of the
Washington Coastal treaty Indian tribes' U&A areas, and acknowledges
these boundaries may be revised as ordered by a Federal court. These
areas are the same as those set out in NMFS regulations for salmon
since 1987 and for Pacific halibut since 1986.
A valid treaty Indian identification card issued pursuant to 25 CFR
part 249, subpart A, would be prima facie evidence that the holder is a
member of the Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribe named on the card.
Participation in a tribal fishery for Pacific Coast groundfish
authorized under these regulations would not require a Federal limited
entry permit. However, fishing by members of a Washington coastal
treaty Indian tribe outside the tribe's U&A area or for a species not
covered by a set-aside or regulation under this rule would be subject
to the same regulations as other, non-treaty persons participating in
the fishery.
Harvests from tribal fisheries under this regulation would not be
subject to, or alter rules concerning, harvesting or processing
apportionments in the non-treaty fisheries; the whiting allocation
regulations at 663.23(b)(4) are proposed to be modified to clarify
this. The proposed rule also would allow release to the non-treaty
fishery of whiting set-aside for the tribes that the tribes will not
use.
The regulations governing tribal harvest of black rockfish
described above would be moved to this section to consolidate all
tribal regulations into one section. In addition, the harvest guideline
would be changed from a harvest guideline for all rockfish to one for
black rockfish. When the black rockfish provision was added to the
regulations, the harvest guideline was only necessary to exempt tribal
members from the black rockfish trip limits (since the open access trip
limits on other rockfish were not constraining on the tribal hook and
line vessels). However, the data collection system did not distinguish
black rockfish from other rockfish, so the harvest guideline was
established for all rockfish. The tribes now can and do distinguish
black rockfish from other rockfish, so the harvest guideline would be
changed to one for black rockfish only, rather than all rockfish. The
tribal members fish with hook and line for other rockfish within the
open access fishery, and have no need for a special regulation or
specific allocation. Also, at the time the regulation was adopted, the
only tribal fishery that harvested rockfish was the hook and line
fishery, which this rule was adopted to cover. Therefore, this rule is
being modified to clarify that the harvest guideline only applies to
the hook and line fishery.
The Makahs also plan to harvest midwater species other than
whiting, using midwater trawl gear in their U&A area. Rather than
attempt to quantify their treaty entitlement to these species at this
early point in the process, the Makahs have agreed that their vessels
will trawl for these other midwater species in conformance with trip
limits established for the limited entry fishery (Sec. 663.24(k)). NMFS
agrees that this is a reasonable accommodation of the treaty right,
particularly in view of data limitations and uncertainty in quantifying
treaty rights.
As a housekeeping matter, Sec. 663.23(b)(1)(i) is proposed to be
deleted because it is unnecessary. This paragraph states that: ``The
trip limit for a vessel engaged in fishing with a pelagic trawl with
mesh size less than 4.5 inches in the Conception or Monterey subareas
is 500 pounds or 5 percent by weight of all fish on board, whichever is
greater, of the species group composed of bocaccio, chilipepper,
splitnose, and yellowtail rockfishes per fishing trip.'' This paragraph
has been in the regulations since 1982 when the FMP first was
implemented (47 FR 43980, October 5, 1982). The management of the
fishery has evolved so that NMFS and the Council annually set and
adjust trip limits for various species, including the Sebastes complex
that contains those species listed in Sec. 663.23(b)(1)(i). Therefore,
the trip limits in this paragraph are no longer necessary, as the
species are adequately protected by the current trip limit system.
[[Page 10305]]
Makah Tribe Pacific Whiting Set Aside for 1996
Pacific whiting, formerly a ``trash'' species for which there were
few markets, has been fully exploited by U.S. non-treaty fishermen and
processors since 1989, and is the object of intense competition between
shoreside and at-sea processors and non-treaty fishermen.
In 1994, NMFS recognized the existence of an Indian treaty right to
Pacific Coast groundfish (all species including Pacific whiting) for
the Washington coastal treaty Indian tribes (exchange of correspondence
between the General Counsel, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, dated October 13, 1994, and the Solicitor, Department
of the Interior, dated October 21, 1994).
The remaining issue is the quantification of the Makahs' right to
Pacific whiting in the Makahs' U&A area. Under the legal principles
discussed above, the question becomes one of attempting to determine
what amount of fish constitutes half the harvestable surplus of Pacific
whiting in the Makahs' U&A area, determined according to the
conservation necessity principle. The conservation necessity principle
means that the determination of the amount of fish available for
harvest must be based solely on resource conservation needs. This
determination is difficult because, with the exception of Makah v.
Brown (the Pacific halibut case), most of the legal and technical
precedents are based on the biology, harvest, and conservation
requirements for Pacific salmon, which are very different from those
for Pacific whiting. Quantifying the tribal right to whiting is also
complicated by data limitations and by the uncertainties of Pacific
whiting biology and conservation requirements.
In determining the appropriate Makah whiting allocation, NMFS's
initial proposal is to rely on biomass and harvest estimates for
Pacific whiting, which are the only data available, and to base the
Makahs' treaty entitlement on the whiting biomass in the Makahs' U&A
area, taking into account the conservation necessity principle.
The Makahs have not stated what they believe is their ultimate
treaty right, nor what method they would propose to use in quantifying
the right. Rather, the Makahs have advanced two proposals for 1996 only
(described below), both of which they believe to be within the
parameters of the treaty right. The Makahs initially proposed an
allocation that would result in their harvesting up to approximately 25
percent of the total U.S. ABC in the Makahs' U&A area. After further
discussions with NMFS, the Makahs made a compromise proposal for an
allocation of 15,000 mt for 1996.
In Makah v. Brown, the Pacific halibut case, the court set the
amount of the tribal treaty right as half the amount of halibut that
was actually harvested in the tribal U&A area, based on historical
statistics for harvests by both treaty and non-treaty fisheries that
occurred in the tribal U&A area. However, the Pacific whiting fishery
differs from the halibut fishery in that there is no established
pattern of harvest closely linked to the area of the tribal U&A area.
The current Pacific whiting management regime assumes that harvests
will be generally proportionate to biomass distribution, but so far
NMFS has not imposed management measures to enforce proportional
harvest in the various subareas.
The Makahs argue that under the conservation necessity principle,
NMFS must show that a restriction on a tribal fishery ``is required to
prevent demonstrable harm to the actual conservation of fish.'' United
States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312, 415 (W.D. Wash. 1974) (emphasis
added). They point out that NMFS' proposal to base the tribal
entitlement on biomass in the Makahs' U&A area, is not required to
prevent demonstrable harm to the resource. The Makahs argue further
that ``management measures cannot be applied to the treaty fishery that
are not applied to other segments of the fishery.'' They argue that
since NMFS has not imposed a specific limit on the amount of whiting
that may be harvested in the Makahs' U&A area, NMFS has no right to
restrict the treaty Indian fishery separately. Finally, the Makahs
argue that basing tribal allocations on the whiting biomass in the
Makahs' U&A area does not account for the quantity of whiting that pass
through their fishing area.
The Makahs' initial proposal was based on whiting biomass from a
larger area than the Makahs' U&A area. Since NMFS had never managed the
fishery based on biomass estimates for subdivisions of the coast, the
Makahs would not agree to focusing on an area the size of the Makahs'
U&A area. The smallest area they would consider using for a biomass
estimate is the North Columbia/Vancouver area. This proposal would give
the Makahs about 25 percent of the U.S. share of the total U.S. Pacific
whiting ABC for the Pacific Coast (equivalent to 25 percent of the
harvest guideline). It is based on comparing the biomass between the
``South Columbia'' and the ``North Columbia/Vancouver'' areas, where 98
percent of the U.S. harvest has occurred in recent years. (Note: To
protect juvenile whiting and sensitive salmon stocks that exist south
of 42 deg. N. lat., the United States prohibits at-sea processors from
operating south of 42 deg. N. lat. As a result, Pacific whiting harvest
is concentrated north of 42 deg. N. lat.). About half of the northern
biomass occurs in the Columbia/Vancouver area, and about half in the
South Columbia area. The Makahs conclude from this that the harvest
should be split equally (50:50) between the two areas, and proposed
that it be allocated half of the harvest in ``North Columbia/
Vancouver,'' or 25 percent of the total U.S. harvest guideline.
As described earlier, when the Makahs made this proposal, the
projected 1996 U.S. harvest guideline was 98,400 mt. Under this
assumption, the Makahs' whiting allocation would have been 24,600 mt.
The new whiting stock assessment now results in a projected harvest
guideline of at least 200,000 mt and possibly as high as 280,000 mt.
Under the revised projected range of possible U.S. harvest guidelines,
the Makahs' whiting allocation under the Makahs' proposal would be at
least 50,000 mt and as high as 70,000 mt.
The following information places the Makahs' proposal in
geographical context. The entire Pacific Coast groundfish fishery
management area (from 3-200 miles offshore from Canada to Mexico) is
divided into five management subareas. From south to north these are
Conception (Mexico to 36 deg. N. lat.), Monterey (36 deg. N. lat. to
40 deg.30' N. lat.), Eureka (40 deg.30' N. lat. to 43 deg. N. lat.),
Columbia (43 deg. N. lat. to 47 deg.30' N. lat.), and Vancouver
(47 deg.30' N. lat. to Canada). The dividing line between ``South
Columbia'' and ``North Columbia/Vancouver'' referred to in the Makahs'
proposal is at approximately the latitude of Cape Falcon, Oregon
(45 deg.46' N. lat.). The Makahs' U&A area is in the area south of the
international boundary with Canada, north of 48 deg.02'15'' N. lat.
(Norwegian Memorial), and east of 125 deg.44'00'' W. long. The Makahs'
U&A area is approximately 8.4 percent of the Columbia/Vancouver
latitudinal range (i.e., from Canada to 43 deg. N. lat.), where most of
the whiting harvest occurs.
NMFS' initial proposal is to quantify the Makahs' treaty right by a
method that is linked to the biomass within the Makahs' U&A area (9.4
percent of the U.S. portion of the biomass), enlarged by a multiplier
described below. The multiplier is NMFS' attempt to accommodate the
conservation
[[Page 10306]]
necessity principle established in case law. We believe the multiplier,
which is based in past experience, represents the highest harvest level
that can be accommodated without raising conservation concerns.
Assuming that an exploitation rate with a value of ``1'' represents
harvest directly correlated to the percentage of biomass in the Makahs'
U&A area, NMFS proposes to use an exploitation rate multiplier of 1.375
to determine the total allowable harvest in the area. This figure
(1.375) is the ratio between the 1989 exploitation rate in the Eureka
area (33 percent) and the 1989 average exploitation rate (24 percent)
for the Eureka, Columbia, and Vancouver areas (which is where nearly
all of the whiting harvest occurs). The 1989 exploitation rate in the
Eureka area is the largest upward deviation from the average
exploitation rate for any statistical area in either 1989 or 1992,
which are the years, after whiting became fully exploited, for which we
have data on biomass distribution and harvest rate. (The data on
distribution and biomass come from NMFS's triennial trawl surveys).
Multiplying the percentage of exploitable biomass in the Makahs'
area (9.4 percent) times the exploitation rate multiplier 1.375 yields
12.9 percent. Based on past experience, this is the percentage of the
U.S. ABC (harvest guideline) that NMFS believes can safely be taken
from the Makahs' area on an annual basis. Under the equal sharing
principle, one-half of that (6.5 percent) should be allocated for
harvest by the Makahs in their U&A area. For 1996, under the earlier
assumption for a U.S. harvest guideline of 98,400 mt, the Makahs'
whiting allocation would be 6,359 mt. Based on the new stock
assessment, however, the Makahs' allocation under the NMFS proposal
would be at least 13,000 mt, and possibly as much as 18,000 mt
depending on the final U.S. harvest guideline adopted. Also, if
analysis of the NMFS 1995 hydroacoustic survey information results in a
different biomass distribution, or a higher multiplier, NMFS would
substitute the new information in determining the actual amount of
whiting to set aside for harvest by the Makahs in 1996 under the NMFS
proposal.
NMFS believes that a biomass-based approach to quantifying the
Makahs' treaty right, linked to the Makahs' U&A area and adjusted
according to the conservation necessity principle, is justified by the
following considerations:
(1) Whiting stock assessments (which are used to establish the
annual ABC and harvest guideline) assume that whiting are exploited at
the same rate throughout the management area. This assumption of
uniform exploitation rate is the safest biological assumption until it
can be demonstrated that a different geographic pattern of harvest is
not harmful.
(2) Although the U.S. and Canada are not in complete agreement on
the bi-national whiting allocation, the distribution of biomass is
recognized by both nations as a sound management basis for fisheries
allocations.
(3) If the Makahs' proposal became the minimum annual harvest
allocation, it would concentrate at least 25 percent of the coastwide
annual harvest into the Makahs' U&A area on a continual basis, while
the area had only 9.4 percent of the harvestable biomass when last
surveyed in 1992. The percentage harvest in the area would actually be
greater than 25 percent if a portion of the non-treaty fishery also
occurred there. A high degree of harvest concentration creates a
conservation concern if it (1) involves a large fraction of the total
harvest; (2) deviates greatly from the average harvest rate for the
fishing area; and/or (3) will occur indefinitely. Although data are not
presently available that allow us to evaluate exactly the biological
effects of the Makahs' proposal, it raises all three of these concerns.
Other potential biological impacts associated with a high degree of
harvest concentration on whiting in the Makahs' area include disturbing
the schooling pattern of the whiting, and increased bycatch of other
species.
During subsequent discussions between NMFS and the Makahs, in
recognition of the unresolved legal and technical difficulties in
quantifying the treaty right to Pacific whiting, the Makahs advanced a
compromise consisting of a 1-year interim allocation of 15,000 mt for
the Makahs in 1996. The proposed 15,000-mt allocation does not reflect
either the NMFS or the Makahs' view of the amount of whiting the Makahs
are entitled to under their Treaty. It represents a compromise proposal
by the Makahs that, according to the Makahs, reflects the minimum
amount of whiting necessary to initiate a fishery by the Makahs. If
implemented by NMFS for 1996, it would be intended for one year only,
and would not be considered to set any precedent regarding either
quantification of the Makahs' treaty entitlement or future allocations.
At the time it was proposed, adopting the 15,000-mt compromise for 1996
was intended to accommodate the Makahs' treaty right and provide NMFS
and the Makahs additional time to determine a long-term quantification
of the right. This Makah proposal is more than twice the amount of
whiting that would have been allocated to the Makahs under the NMFS
proposal (using the initial assumption of a U.S. harvest guideline of
98,400 mt). However, based on the new stock assessment, under which the
NMFS proposal results in potential allocations to the Makahs of 13,000
to 18,000 mt, the NMFS proposal and the Makahs' compromise proposal for
an allocation of 15,000 mt are not markedly different.
Therefore, NMFS seeks public comment on each of the three
proposals, explained above, on the appropriate amount of whiting to
allocate to the Makahs in 1996. The three alternatives include the
Makahs' initial proposal of 25 percent of the 1996 U.S. harvest
guideline, the NMFS proposal of 6.5 percent, and the Makahs' compromise
1-year allocation of 15,000 mt. This allocation also would include a
provision to release to the non-treaty fishery any portion of the
Makahs' set aside estimated by the Tribe not to be needed by them in
1996.
Classification
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), has
preliminarily determined that this proposed rule is necessary for
management of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery and that it is
consistent with the Magnuson Act and other applicable law.
NMFS prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for this proposed
rule that discusses the impact on the environment as a result of this
rule. The EA concludes that the biological and physical impacts are
most likely indistinguishable from those of the limited entry trawl
fleet in general for most groundfish species that the Makahs have
agreed to manage under the current limited entry trawl-trip limits. The
EA also asserts that the same conclusion is valid for both the NMFS
proposal and the Makahs' 15,000-mt proposal to implement a Makah
allocation, under the framework proposal, for Pacific whiting.
Conservation concerns arise for both Pacific whiting and bycatch
species such as Pacific ocean perch if the Makahs' initial proposal for
an allocation amounting to 25 percent of the U.S. Pacific whiting
harvest guideline were implemented on a longterm basis. On the basis of
the EA, the AA concluded that there would be no significant impact on
the environment under any of the alternatives. A copy of the EA is
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
[[Page 10307]]
NMFS prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis as part of
the regulatory impact review, which describes the impact this proposed
rule would have on small entities, if adopted. The proposed framework
in itself would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Of the three allocation options considered
under the framework for 1996, all potentially would affect a
``substantial number'' of small business entities (tribal and non-
tribal catcher vessels that do not process, and shore-based whiting
processors). However, if either the second Makah option (15,000 mt) or
NMFS option (13,000 mt or up to 18,000 mt depending on the harvest
guideline adopted) were implemented, it would not cause ``significant
economic impacts''--these sectors would receive more whiting in 1996
than in 1995, largely due to the expected increase in the harvest
guideline. Only the initial Makah option (25 percent of the U.S.
harvest guideline) could result in a significant economic impact. A
copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
A formal section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act
was concluded for the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP. In a biological
opinion dated August 28, 1993, and a subsequent reinitiation dated
September 27, 1993, the AA determined that fishing activities conducted
under the FMP and its implementing regulations are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species under the jurisdiction of NMFS.
This proposed rule has been determined by the Office of Management
and Budget to be significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 663
Administrative practice and procedure, Fisheries, Fishing,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 8, 1996.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 663 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 663--PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH FISHERY
1. The authority citation for part 663 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. Section 663.2 is amended by adding the definition for
``commercial harvest guideline or commercial quota'', in alphabetical
order, to read as follows:
Sec. 663.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Commercial harvest guideline or commercial quota means the harvest
guideline or quota after subtracting any allocation for the Pacific
Coast treaty Indian tribes or for recreational fisheries. Limited entry
and open access allocations are based on the commercial harvest
guideline or quota.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 663.7, paragraphs (n) and (o) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 663.7 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(n) Process Pacific whiting in the fishery management area during
times or in areas where at-sea processing is prohibited, unless the
fish were received from a member of a Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribe
fishing under Sec. 663.24.
(o) Take and retain or receive, except as cargo, Pacific whiting on
a vessel in the fishery management area that already possesses
processed Pacific whiting on board, during times or in areas where at-
sea processing is prohibited, unless the fish were received from a
member of a Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribe fishing under
Sec. 663.24.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 663.23, paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(4)(i) through
(b)(4)(iv) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 663.23 Catch restrictions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Black rockfish. The trip limit for black rockfish (Sebastes
melanops) for commercial fishing vessels using hook-and-line gear
between the U.S.-Canada border and Cape Alava (48 deg.09'30'' N. lat.),
and between Destruction Island (47 deg.40'00'' N. lat.) and Leadbetter
Point (46 deg.38'10'' N. lat.), is 100 pounds or 30 percent by weight
of all fish on board, whichever is greater, per vessel per fishing
trip.
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(i) The shoreside reserve. When 60 percent of the commercial
harvest guideline for Pacific whiting has been or is projected to be
taken, further at-sea processing of Pacific whiting will be prohibited
pursuant to paragraph (b)(4)(iv) of this section. The remaining 40
percent is reserved for harvest by vessels delivering to shoreside
processors.
(ii) Release of the reserve. That portion of the commercial harvest
guideline that the Regional Director determines will not be used by
shoreside processors by the end of that fishing year shall be made
available for harvest by all fishing vessels, regardless of where they
deliver, on August 15 or as soon as practicable thereafter. NMFS may
again release whiting at a later date if it becomes obvious, after
August 15, that shore-based needs have been substantially over-
estimated, but only after consultation with the Council and only to
ensure full utilization of the resource. Pacific whiting not needed in
the fishery authorized under Sec. 663.24 also may be made available.
(iii) Estimates. Estimates of the amount of Pacific whiting
harvested will be based on actual amounts harvested, projections of
amounts that will be harvested, or a combination of the two. Estimates
of the amount of Pacific whiting that will be used by shoreside
processors by the end of the fishing year will be based on the best
information available to the Regional Director from state catch and
landings data, the survey of domestic processing capacity and intent,
testimony received at Council meetings, and/or other relevant
information.
(iv) Announcements. The Assistant Administrator will announce in
the Federal Register when 60 percent of the commercial harvest
guideline for whiting has been, or is about to be, harvested,
specifying a time after which further at-sea processing of Pacific
whiting in the fishery management area is prohibited. The Assistant
Administrator will publish a document in the Federal Register to
announce any release of the reserve on August 15, or as soon as
practicable thereafter. In order to prevent exceeding the limits or
underutilizing the resource, adjustments may be made effective
immediately by actual notice to fishermen and processors, by phone,
fax, Northwest Region computerized bulletin board (contact 206-526-
6128), letter, press release, and/or U.S. Coast Guard Notice to
Mariners (monitor channel 16 VHF), followed by publication in the
Federal Register, in which instance public comment will be sought for a
reasonable period of time thereafter. If insufficient time exists to
consult with the Council, the Regional Director will inform the Council
in writing of actions taken.
* * * * *
5. Section 663.24 is added to read as follows:
[[Page 10308]]
Sec. 663.24 Pacific Coast treaty Indian fisheries.
(a) Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes have treaty rights to
harvest groundfish in their usual and accustomed fishing areas in U.S.
waters.
(b) For the purposes of this part, Pacific Coast treaty Indian
tribes means the Hoh, Makah, and Quileute Indian Tribes and the
Quinault Indian Nation.
(c) The Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes' usual and accustomed
fishing areas within the fishery management area (FMA) are set out
below. Boundaries of a tribe's fishing area may be revised as ordered
by a Federal court.
(1) Makah--That portion of the FMA between 48 deg.02'15'' N. lat.
(Norwegian Memorial) and east of 125 deg.44'00'' W. long.
(2) Quileute--That portion of the FMA between 48 deg.07'36'' N.
lat. (Sand Point) and 47 deg.31'42'' N. lat.(Queets River) and east of
125 deg.44'00'' W. long.
(3) Hoh--That portion of the FMA between 47 deg.54'18'' N. lat.
(Quillayute River) and 47 deg.21'00'' N. lat. (Quinault River) and east
of 125 deg.44'00'' W. long.
(4) Quinault--That portion of the FMA between 47 deg.40'06'' N.
lat. (Destruction Island) and 46 deg.53'18'' N. lat. (Point Chehalis)
and east of 125 deg.44'00'' W. long.
(d) Procedures. The rights referred to in paragraph (a) of this
section will be implemented by the Secretary, after consideration of
the tribal request, the recommendation of the Council, and the comments
of the public. The rights will be implemented either through an
allocation of fish that will be managed by the tribes, or through
regulations in this section that will apply specifically to the tribal
fisheries. An allocation or a regulation specific to the tribes shall
be initiated by a written request from a Pacific Coast treaty Indian
tribe to the Regional Director, prior to the first of the Council's two
annual groundfish meetings. The Secretary generally will announce the
annual tribal allocation at the same time as the annual specifications
developed under section II.H. of the Appendix to this part.
(e) Identification. A valid treaty Indian identification card
issued pursuant to 25 CFR part 249, subpart A, is prima facie evidence
that the holder is a member of the Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribe
named on the card.
(f) A limited entry permit under subpart C of this section is not
required for participation in a tribal fishery described in paragraph
(d) of this section.
(g) Fishing under this section by a member of a Pacific Coast
treaty Indian tribe within their usual and accustomed fishing area is
not subject to the provisions of other sections of this part.
(h) Any member of a Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribe must comply
with this section, and with any applicable tribal law and regulation,
when participating in a tribal groundfish fishery described in
paragraph (d) of this section.
(i) Fishing by a member of a Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribe
outside the applicable Indian tribe's usual and accustomed fishing
area, or for a species of groundfish not covered by an allocation or
regulation under this section, is subject to the regulations in the
other sections of this part.
(j) Black rockfish. Harvest guidelines for commercial harvests of
black rockfish by members of the Pacific Coast Indian tribes using hook
and line gear will be established annually for the areas between the
U.S.-Canada border and Cape Alava (48 deg.09'30'' N. lat.) and between
Destruction Island (47 deg.40'00'' N. lat.) and Leadbetter Point
(46 deg.38'10'' N. lat.), in accordance with the procedures for
implementing annual specifications in section II.H of the Appendix to
this part. Pacific Coast treaty Indians fishing for black rockfish in
these areas under these harvest guidelines are subject to the
provisions in this section, and not to the restrictions in other
sections of this part.
(k) Groundfish without a tribal allocation. Makah tribal members
may use midwater trawl gear to take and retain groundfish for which
there is no tribal allocation, and will be subject to the trip landing
and frequency and size limits applicable to the limited entry fishery.
6. The Appendix to this part is amended by revising the first
paragraph in section II.H. to read as follows:
Appendix to Part 663--Groundfish Management Procedures
* * * * *
II. * * *
H. * * *
Annually, the Council will develop recommendations for
specification of ABCs, identification of species or species groups for
management by numerical harvest guidelines and quotas, specification of
the numerical harvest guidelines and quotas, and apportionments to DAP,
JVP, DAH, TALFF, and the reserve over the span of two Council meetings.
The Council also will develop recommendations for the specification of
allocations for Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes as described at
Sec. 663.24.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-6054 Filed 3-8-96; 3:49 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-W
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6021 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; San Andreas, CA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10296-10297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6021]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AWP-27]
Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; San Andreas, CA
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to establish a Class E airspace area at
San Andreas, CA. The development of a Global Positioning System (GPS)
Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 31 has
made this proposal necessary. The intended effect of this proposal is
to provide adequate controlled airspace for Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR) operations at Calaveras Co-Maury Rasmussen Field Airport, San
Andreas, CA.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 22, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Federal
Aviation Administration, Attn: Manager, System Management Branch, AWP-
530, Docket No. 95-AWP-27, Air Traffic Division, P.O. Box 92007,
Worldway Postal Center, Los Angeles, California, 90009.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel, Western Pacific Region, Federal Aviation Administration,
Room 6007, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California, 90261.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business at
the Office of the Manager, System Management Branch, Air Traffic
Division at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William Buck, Airspace Specialist, System Management Branch, AWP-530,
Air Traffic Division, Western-Pacific Region, Federal Aviation
Administration, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California, 90261,
telephone (310) 725-6556.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Intersted 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 above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with the comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 95-
AWP-27.'' The postcard will be date/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 light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available
for examination in the System Management Branch, Air Traffic Division,
at 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261, 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
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration,
System Management Branch, P.O. Box 92007, Worldway Postal Center, Los
Angeles, California 90009. 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, which describes the application procedures.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish a Class E airspace
area at San Andreas, CA. The development of a GPS SIAP at Calaveras Co-
Muary Rasmussen Field Airport has made this proposal necessary. The
intended effect of this proposal is to provide adequate Class E
airspace for aircraft executing the GPS RWY 31 SIAP at Calaveras Co-
Muary Rasmussen Field Airport, San Andreas, CA. Class E airspace
designations for airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more
above the surface of the earth 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
this Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation--(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 10034; 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 proposed rule would not
have a significant economic 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. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 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.
* * * * *
AWP CA E5 San Andreas, CA [New]
Calaveras Co-Muary Rasmussen Field Airport, CA
(lat. 38 deg.08'46'' N, long. 120 deg.38'53'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.3-mile
[[Page 10297]]
radius of Calaveras Co-Muary Rasmussen Field Airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Los Angeles, California, on March 1, 1996.
Harvey R. Riebel,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 96-6021 Filed 3-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6012 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10298-10300]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6012]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-5434-6]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to Delete the East Bethel Landfill Site from
the National Priorities List; Request for Comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
Region V announces its intent to delete the East Bethel Landfill Site
from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on
this action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP), which U.S. EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended. This action is being taken by U.S. EPA,
because it has been determined that all Fund-financed responses under
CERCLA have been implemented and U.S. EPA, in consultation with the
State of Minnesota, has determined that no further response is
appropriate. Moreover, U.S. EPA and the State have determined that
remedial activities conducted at the Site to date have been protective
of public health, welfare, and the environment.
DATES: Comments concerning the proposed deletion of the Site from the
NPL may be submitted on or before April 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Rita Garner-Davis (SR-6J)
Associate Remedial Project Manager, Office of Superfund, U.S. EPA,
Region V, 77 W.
[[Page 10299]]
Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604. Comprehensive information on the site
is available at U.S. EPA's Region V office and at the local information
repository located at: East Bethel City Hall and the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency Public Library, 520 Lafayette Rd., St. Paul,
MN 55155-4194. Requests for comprehensive copies of documents should be
directed formally to the Region V Docket Office. The address and phone
number for the Regional Docket Officer is Jan Pfundheller (H-7J), U.S.
EPA, Region V, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353-5821.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rita Garner-Davis (SR-6J), Associate Remedial Project Manager, Office
of Superfund, U.S. EPA, Region V, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL
60604, (312) 886-2440 or Eileen Deamer (P-19J), Office of Public
Affairs, U.S. EPA, Region V, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604,
(312) 886-1728.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
I. Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region V announces
its intent to delete the East Bethel Landfill Site from the National
Priorities List (NPL), which constitutes Appendix B of the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), and requests
comments on the proposed deletion. The EPA identifies sites that appear
to present a significant risk to public health, welfare or the
environment, and maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. Sites on
the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the
Hazardous Substance Superfund Response Trust Fund (Fund). Pursuant to
Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, any site deleted from the NPL remains
eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if the conditions at the
site warrant such action.
The U.S. EPA will accept comments on this proposal for thirty (30)
days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
Section II of this notice explains the criteria for deleting sites
from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for
this action. Section IV discusses the history of this site and explains
how the site meets the deletion criteria.
Deletion of sites from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Furthermore, deletion
from the NPL does not in any way alter U.S. EPA's right to take
enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist in Agency management.
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
The NCP establishes the criteria the Agency uses to delete Sites
from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be
deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In
making this determination, U.S. EPA will consider, in consultation with
the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:
(i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required; or
(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
(iii) The Remedial investigation has shown that the release poses
no significant threat to public health or the environment and,
therefore, remedial measures are not appropriate.
III. Deletion Procedures
Upon determination that at least one of the criteria described in
300.425(e) has been met, U.S. EPA may formally begin deletion
procedures once the State has concurred. This Federal Register notice,
and a concurrent notice in the local newspaper in the vicinity of the
Site, announce the initiation of a 30-day comment period. The public is
asked to comment on U.S. EPA's intention to delete the Site from the
NPL. All critical documents needed to evaluate U.S. EPA's decision are
included in the information repository and the deletion docket.
Upon completion of the public comment period, if necessary, the
U.S. EPA Regional Office will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to
evaluate and address comments that were received. The public is welcome
to contact the U.S. EPA Region V Office to obtain a copy of this
responsiveness summary, if one is prepared. If U.S. EPA then determines
the deletion from the NPL is appropriate, final notice of deletion will
be published in the Federal Register.
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
The East Bethel Landfill is located in north-central Anoka County,
approximately a half mile east of Minnesota Highway 65 along 217th
Avenue. The East Bethel Landfill is a mixed municipal solid waste and
demolition waste disposal facility. The Landfill ceased general
acceptance of mixed municipal solid waste in 1974, and thereafter until
April 9, 1994, accepted only demolition debris, certain industrial
wastes, and mixed municipal solid waste from residents of the City of
East Bethel. From April 9, 1994 until April 30, 1995, the Landfill
accepted for disposal only demolition waste in accordance with the
limitations set forth in a Minnesota Statute dated October 7, 1994.
The first set of ground water samples collected from existing
monitoring wells in 1982 indicated the presence of VOCs in the ground
water near the Site. Subsequent sampling confirmed the presence of VOCs
in the ground water.
In October, 1984, the Site was placed on Minnesota's Permanent List
Priorities (PLP) and U.S. EPA's National Priorities List (NPL) (Federal
Register 51 page 21054).
The Remedial Investigation (RI) Report was submitted in February,
1990, and approved by MPCA on May 23, 1990. There were three phrases of
the Feasibility Study (FS). The first phase of the FS, the
Establishment of Response Action Objectives Report, was approved on May
16, 1991. The second phase of the FS the Alternatives Report (AR) was
developed and submitted to MPCA on June 17, 1991. The AR was developed
to review the various response actions that were outlined in the
Objectives Report. The AR was approved by the MPCA on October 3, 1991.
The third phase of the FS the Detailed Analysis Report (DAR) was
submitted January, 1992. There was a DAR addendum to supply additional
information. The DAR Addendum was approved on August 10, 1992. In 1989,
an Interim Response Action Pumping, (IRAP) system was installed at the
site. The IRAP operated during the summer and fall of 1990, but could
not operate during 1991 due to operational problems. The operational
problems were corrected and the system operated from May to October 16,
1992.
The Record of Decision (ROD) was signed by U.S. EPA on December 30,
1992. The December 30, 1992, ROD identified two operable units to be
addressed as a part of the remediation of the East Bethel Landfill
Site. Operable unit one is the ground water contamination and operable
unit two is the source of contamination, the landfill.
The remedy selected in the 1992 ROD for operable unit one (ground
water contamination) consists of withdrawal of contaminated ground
water, treatment of ground water, and discharge of treated water as
well as
[[Page 10300]]
continued monitoring of the contaminated aquifers. This remedy
addresses remediation of ground water by eliminating or reducing the
risks posed by the site, through ground water pump and treat. The final
report for the completion of construction of the ground water remedial
action was approved by letter of the MPCA dated September 26, 1995.
The second operable unit is the Landfill (the source of
contamination). The owners of the landfill are constructing a landfill
cap using Responsible Parties' monies. Under the Landfill Cleanup
Program, the MPCA would maintain the cap, operate the ground-water
pump-and-treat system, and monitor the ground water and the passive gas
system.
The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and the
Proposed Plan for the Site were released to the public for comment on
August 12, 1992. The notice of availability for the RI/FS and the
Proposed Plan was published in the August 7, 1992 edition of the Anoka
County Union, the local newspaper. The public comment period began on
August 12, 1992 and ended on September 10, 1992. A public meeting was
held on August 27, 1992, at the Cedar Creek Elementary School located
in East Bethel. At this, meeting representatives from the MPCA,
Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), and Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) answered questions about problems at the Site and the
remedial alternatives under consideration. No person requested an
extension to the public comment period.
All the components of the remedy have been fully implemented. On
October 31, 1995, the site was issued a Notice of Compliance (NOC) from
the State under the Minnesota Landfill Cleanup Law. The State has now
assumed full responsibility for the remedy at this site. There are no
additional cleanup levels to achieve for the remedy. U.S. EPA will
proceed in deleting the site from the NPL.
Upon completion of construction of the landfill cap, the following
will occur: (1) a certificate of construction completion of the
remedial action will be issued in accordance with the RA design plan,
and (2) a final report documenting the completion of construction will
be prepared in accordance with the MPCA Consent Order.
EPA, with concurrence from the State of Minnesota, has determined
that all appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA at the East
Bethel Landfill Superfund Site have been completed, and no further
CERCLA response is appropriate in order to provide protection of human
health and the environment. Therefore, EPA proposes to delete the site
from the NPL.
Dated: February 8, 1996.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator, USEPA, Region V.
[FR Doc. 96-6012 Filed 3-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-5944 Airworthiness Directives; Piaggio Model P-180 Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10292-10294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5944]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-256-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Piaggio Model P-180 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 Piaggio Model P-180
airplanes. This proposal would require replacement of outflow/safety
valves with serviceable valves. This proposal is prompted by a report
of cracking and subsequent failure of outflow safety valves in the
pressurization system. The actions specified by the proposed AD are
intended to prevent such cracking and subsequent failure of the
outflow/safety valves, which could result in rapid decompression of the
airplane.
DATES: Comments must be received by April 22, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-256-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 Allied Signal Aerospace, Technical Publications, Dept.
65-70, P.O. Box 52170, Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2170. This information
may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, California.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walter Eierman, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California
90712; telephone (310) 627-5336; 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 95-NM-256-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-256-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
The FAA has received a report of the failure of a safety valve in
the pressurization system on a Learjet Model 31A airplane. Failure of
the valve resulted in depressurization of the cabin. Investigation
revealed that the poppets of certain outflow/safety valves were
cracked. These discrepant valves, including the safety valve installed
on the incident airplane, had been manufactured since January 1, 1989.
Certain valves manufactured since that date have been found to be
susceptible to cracking due to an improper molding process during their
manufacture. Cracking in the poppets of the outflow/
[[Page 10293]]
safety valves in the pressurization system can result in an open valve
with an effective flow area of 4.4 square inches; additionally, the
valve may close and remain closed. This condition, if not corrected,
could result in cracking and subsequent failure of the airflow/safety
valves, which could lead to rapid decompression of the airplane.
On September 20, 1995, the FAA issued AD 95-20-03, amendment 39-
9381 (60 FR 51709, October 3, 1995), to address this unsafe condition
on certain Learjet Model 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 35, 36, and 55 series
airplanes. Subsequently, on December 5, 1995, the FAA issued AD 95-25-
10, amendment 39-9456, (60 FR 66484, December 22, 1995), to address the
unsafe condition on certain Cessna Model 441, 500, 550, and 560 series
airplanes. The outflow/safety valves installed on these Cessna and
Learjet airplane models are similar to the valves installed on Piaggio
Model P-180 series airplanes. Therefore, the FAA has determined that
the latter airplane model also is subject to the unsafe condition
described previously.
The FAA has reviewed and approved Allied Signal Aerospace Service
Bulletins 103742-21-4059 (for airplanes equipped with valves having
part number 103742) and 103744-21-4060 (for airplanes equipped with
valves having part number 103744), both dated March 31, 1995, which
describe procedures for replacement of certain discrepant outflow/
safety valves with serviceable valves.
This airplane model is manufactured in Italy and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, the
proposed AD would require replacement of certain discrepant outflow/
safety valves with serviceable valves. The actions would be required to
be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletins described
previously.
Operators should note that, although the service bulletins
recommend accomplishing the replacement within 300 flight hours or six
months (after the release of the service bulletins), whichever occurs
first, the FAA has determined that an interval of 18 months will
address the identified unsafe condition in a timely manner. This
proposed compliance time of 18 months was determined to be appropriate
in consideration of the safety implications, the average utilization
rate of the affected fleet, the practical aspects of accomplishment of
the replacement during regular maintenance periods, and the
availability of required replacement parts.
The FAA estimates that 10 airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 12 work
hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the
average labor rate is $60 per work hour. The parts manufacturer has
advised that it will provide replacement parts at no cost to operators.
Based on these figures, the cost impact of this proposal on U.S.
operators is estimated to be $7,200, or $720 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.
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 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13--[Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
I.A.M. Rinaldo Piaggio S.P.A.: Docket 95-NM-256-AD.
Applicability: Model P-180 airplanes equipped with Allied Signal
outflow/safety valves, as identified in Allied Signal Aerospace
Service Bulletins 103742-21-4059 and 103744-21-4060, both dated
March 31, 1995, 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 (c) 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 cracking and subsequent failure of the outflow/safety
valves, which would result in rapid decompression of the airplane,
accomplish the following:
(a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD,
replace the outflow/safety valve in accordance with Allied Signal
Aerospace Service Bulletin 103742-21-4059 (for airplanes equipped
with valves having part number 103742), or 103744-21-4060 (for
airplanes equipped with valves having part number 103744), both
dated March 31, 1995, as applicable.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install
an outflow/safety valve, having a part number and serial number
identified in Allied Signal Aerospace Service Bulletin 103742-21-
4059 (for airplanes equipped with valves having part number 103742)
or 103744-21-4060 (for airplanes equipped with valves having part
number 103744), both dated March 31, 1995, on any airplane unless
that valve is considered to be serviceable in accordance with the
applicable service bulletin.
(c) 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 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, Los Angeles ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of
[[Page 10294]]
compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Los
Angeles ACO.
(d) 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 March 7, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-5944 Filed 3-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-5943 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100 and -200 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10294-10296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5943]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-NM-04-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100 and -200 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 737-100 and -
200 series airplanes. This proposal would require inspections to detect
cracking of the support fittings of the Krueger flap actuator; and
replacement of existing fittings with new steel fittings and
modification of the aft attachment of the actuator, if necessary. This
proposal is prompted by reports of cracking due to fatigue and stress
corrosion of the support fittings of the Krueger flap actuator. The
actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent such
cracking, which could result in fracturing of the actuator attach lugs,
separation of the actuator from the support fitting, severing of the
hydraulic lines, and resultant loss of hydraulic fluids. These
conditions, if not corrected, could result in possible failure of one
or more hydraulic systems, and subsequent reduced controllability of
the airplane.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 6, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-NM-04-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: Della Swartz, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; telephone (206) 227-2785;
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 96-NM-04-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-04-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
The FAA received several reports indicating that cracking was found
on Model 737 series airplanes in the support fittings that attach the
Krueger flap actuator to the front spar. This cracking was found in the
actuator attach lugs of the support fittings on a number of airplanes,
and in the fillet radius between the actuator attach lug and the
vertical flanges of the fitting on one airplane. The cause of the
cracking has been attributed to fatigue and stress corrosion. Complete
fracture of both actuator attach lugs could allow the actuator to
separate from the support fitting, which could sever the hydraulic
lines and result in the loss of hydraulic fluids. This condition, if
not corrected, could result in possible failure of one or more
hydraulic systems, and subsequent reduced controllability of the
airplane.
The FAA also received two reports indicating that hydraulic system
A and the standby hydraulic system failed during flight on Model 737
series airplanes. During subsequent emergency landings, these airplanes
departed the end of the runway and sustained severe damage. On one of
these airplanes, both actuator attach lugs on the support fittings of
the No. 1 Krueger flap actuator were severed completely. The actuator
separated from the front spar and the adjacent hydraulic lines were
severed. On the other airplane, the No. 3 Krueger flap actuator
separated from the fitting and the hydraulic lines to the actuator were
severed. Subsequently, the hydraulic fuse did not close sufficiently to
prevent the loss of hydraulic fluid from the system. Results of a
laboratory examination of the fuse indicated that corrosion existed on
the magnesium piston of the fuse.
The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-
1129, Revision 1, dated October 30, 1981, as revised by Notices of
Status Change 737-57-1129NSC1, dated July 23, 1982; 737-57-1129 NSC2,
dated April 14, 1983; and 737-57-1129 NSC 3, dated May 18, 1995. This
service bulletin describes procedures for an initial visual inspection
and repetitive eddy current inspections to detect cracking of the
support fittings of the Krueger flap actuator; and replacement of
existing fittings with new steel fittings and modification of the aft
attachment of the actuator, if necessary. Such replacement and
modification eliminates the need for repetitive eddy current
inspections of the fittings.
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 repetitive eddy current inspections to detect
cracking of the support fittings of the Krueger flap actuator; and
replacement of existing fittings with new steel fittings and
modification of the aft attachment of the actuator, if necessary. Such
replacement
[[Page 10295]]
and modification, if accomplished, would constitute terminating action
for the required repetitive inspections. The actions would be required
to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin described
previously.
Operators should note that, while the service bulletin recommends
that the initial inspection be performed using a visual method and
subsequent repetitive inspections be performed using an eddy current
technique, this proposed AD would require that both the initial and
repetitive inspections be accomplished using the eddy current method.
The support fittings of the Krueger flap actuator are susceptible to
stress corrosion cracking, and the crack growth rate for such cracking
is unknown. The FAA finds that, if a visual inspection is accomplished
to detect cracking of the support fittings, such cracking may not be
detected in a timely manner to adequately address the unsafe condition.
Therefore, the FAA has determined that an adequate level of safety for
the affected fleet requires that both the initial and repetitive
inspections of these fittings be performed using an eddy current
technique, which is a more reliable method of crack detection.
The FAA is considering the issuance of separate rulemaking action
to address failure of hydraulic fuses having magnesium pistons. Fuses
of this type are installed on Model 747-100, -200, -300, and -SP series
airplanes, as well as Model 737-100 and -200 series airplanes.
There are approximately 727 Model 737-100 and -200 series airplanes
of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that
270 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD,
that it would take approximately 12 work hours per airplane (6 work
hours per wing) 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
$194,400, or $720 per airplane, per inspection.
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.
Should an operator elect to accomplish the replacement and
modification rather than continue the repetitive inspections, it would
take approximately 88 work hours per airplane (44 work hours per wing)
to accomplish the replacement and modification, at an average labor
rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately
$13,172 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the
replacement and modification is estimated to be $18,452 per airplane.
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 96-NM-04-AD.
Applicability: Model 737-100 and -200 series airplanes, line
positions 001 through 813 inclusive, 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 (d) 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 possible failure of one or more hydraulic systems and
subsequent reduced controllability of the airplane, accomplish the
following:
(a) Within one year after the effective date of this AD, perform
an eddy current inspection to detect cracking of the support fitting
of the Krueger flap actuator, in accordance with Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-57-1129, Revision 1, dated October 30, 1981, as revised
by Notices of Status Change 737-57-1129NSC1, dated July 23, 1982;
737-57-1129 NSC2, dated April 14, 1983; and 737-57-1129 NSC 3, dated
May 18, 1995.
(1) If no cracking is found, repeat the inspection required by
paragraph (a) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000
hours time-in-service.
(2) If any cracking is found, prior to further flight,
accomplish the replacement and modification specified in paragraph
(b) of this AD.
(b) Replacement of the support fitting with a steel fitting and
modification of the actuator aft attachment in accordance with
Boeing Service Bulletin 737-57-1129, Revision 1, dated October 30,
1981, as revised by Notices of Status Change 737-57-1129NSC1, dated
July 23, 1982; 737-57-1129 NSC2, dated April 14, 1983; and 737-57-
1129 NSC 3, dated May 18, 1995; constitutes terminating action for
the repetitive inspections required by this AD.
(c) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install
a support fitting having part number 69-37892-9, 69-37892-10, 69-
37893-1, or 69-37893-2 on the Krueger flap actuator of any airplane.
(d) 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.
(e) 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.
[[Page 10296]]
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 7, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-5943 Filed 3-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-5933 Milk in the Central Arizona Marketing Area; Proposed Suspension of Certain Provisions of the Order
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10288-10289]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5933]
========================================================================
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. 50 / Wednesday, March 13, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 10288]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1131
[DA-96-03]
Milk in the Central Arizona Marketing Area; Proposed Suspension
of Certain Provisions of the Order
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed suspension of rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document invites written comments on a proposal to
suspend certain provisions of the Central Arizona Federal milk
marketing order for an indefinite period beginning April 1, 1996. The
proposed suspension would continue a suspension which expires on March
31, 1996, that eliminates the requirement that a cooperative
association ship at least 50 percent of its receipts to other handler
pool plants to maintain pool status of a manufacturing plant operated
by the cooperative. United Dairymen of Arizona, a cooperative
association that represents nearly all of the producers who supply milk
to the market, has requested continuation of the suspension. The
cooperative asserts that the suspension is necessary to prevent
uneconomical and inefficient movements of milk.
DATES: Comments are due no later than March 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments (two copies) should be filed with the USDA/AMS/
Dairy Division, Order Formulation Branch, Room 2971, South Building,
P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clifford M. Carman, Marketing
Specialist, USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order Formulation Branch, Room
2971, South Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, (202)
720-9368.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601-612) requires the Agency to examine the impact of a proposed rule
on small entities. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator of
the Agricultural Marketing Service has certified that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This rule would tend to ensure that dairy
farmers would continue to have their milk priced under the order and
thereby receive the benefits that accrue from such pricing.
The Department is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with
Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have a retroactive
effect. If adopted, this proposed rule will not preempt any state or
local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an
irreconcilable conflict with the rule.
The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7
U.S.C. 601-674), provides that administrative proceedings must be
exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section
608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with
the Secretary a petition stating that the order, any provisions of the
order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in
accordance with law and request a modification of an order or to be
exempted from the order. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a
hearing on the petition. After a hearing, the Secretary would rule on
the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United
States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has
its principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to review
the Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided a bill in equity is
filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the provisions of the
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act, the suspension of the following
provision of the order regulating the handling of milk in the Central
Arizona marketing area is being considered for an indefinite period
beginning April 1, 1996:
In Sec. 1131.7(c), the words ``50 percent or more of,''
``(including the skim milk and butterfat in fluid milk products
transferred from its own plant pursuant to this paragraph that is not
in excess of the skim milk and butterfat contained in member producer
milk actually received at such plant)'' and ``or the previous 12-month
period ending with the current month.''
All persons who want to submit written data, views or arguments
about the proposed suspension should send two copies of their views to
the USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order Formulation Branch, Room 2971, South
Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, by the 7th day
after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The period
for filing comments is limited to 7 days because a longer period would
not provide the time needed to complete the required procedures before
the requested suspension is to be effective.
All written submissions made pursuant to this notice will be made
available for public inspection in the Dairy Division during regular
business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)).
Statement of Consideration
The proposed rule would continue to suspend certain provisions of
the Central Arizona order for an indefinite period beginning April 1,
1996. The proposed suspension would continue to remove the requirement
that a cooperative association which operates a manufacturing plant in
the marketing area must ship at least 50 percent of its milk supply
during the current month or the previous 12-month period ending with
the current month to other handlers' pool plants to maintain the pool
status of its manufacturing plant.
The order permits a cooperative association's manufacturing plant,
located in the marketing area, to be a pool plant if at least 50
percent of the producer milk of members of the cooperative association
is physically received at pool plants of other handlers during the
current month or the previous 12-month period ending with the current
month.
Continuation of the current suspension was requested by United
Dairymen of Arizona (UDA), a cooperative association that represents
nearly all of the dairy farmers who supply the Central Arizona market.
UDA contends that the continued pool status of their manufacturing
plant is threatened if the suspension is not continued. UDA states that
the same marketing conditions that warranted the
[[Page 10289]]
suspension last year still exist. UDA maintains that members who
increased their milk production to meet the projected demands of fluid
handlers for distribution into Mexico continue to suffer the adverse
impact of the collapse of the Mexican peso. Absent a suspension, UDA
projects that costly and inefficient movements of milk would have to be
made to maintain pool status of producers who have historically
supplied the market and to prevent disorderly marketing in the Central
Arizona marketing area.
Accordingly, it may be appropriate to suspend the aforesaid
provisions beginning April 1, 1996, for an indefinite period.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1131
Milk marketing orders.
The authority citation for 7 CFR Part 1131 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
Dated: March 7, 1996.
Lon Hatamiya,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-5933 Filed 3-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-5902 Television Broadcasting Services; Wittenberg, WI
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 10301]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5902]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-31; RM-8761]
Television Broadcasting Services; Wittenberg, WI
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition filed by David
R. Magnum d/b/a Shawano county Television Company proposing the
allotment of UHF Television Channel 55 to Wittenberg, Wisconsin.
Canadian concurrence will be requested for this allotment at
coordinates 45-01-56 and 89-18-44. There is a site restriction 25.8
kilometers (16 miles) northwest of the community.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before April 29, 1996, and reply
comments on or before May 14, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner, as follows: David R. Magnum d/b/a Shawano county
Television Company, 1021 North Superior Avenue, Tomah, Wisconsin 54660.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-31, adopted February
23, 1996, and released March 6, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the Commission'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 Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,
Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.
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 contact.
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. 96-5902 Filed 3-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-5901 Television Broadcasting Services; Antigo, WI
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10301-10302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5901]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-30; RM-8762]
Television Broadcasting Services; Antigo, WI
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition filed by Robert
J. Cox d/b/a Native American Television Company proposing the allotment
of UHF Television Channel 46 to Antigo, Wisconsin. The channel can be
allotted to Antigo without a site restriction at coordinates 45-08-54
and 89-09-00. Canadian concurrence will be requested for the allotment
of Channel 46 at Antigo.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before April 29, 1996, and reply
comments on or before May 14, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner, as follows: Robert J. Cox, Native American
Television Company, 200 Fillmore Street, Kaukauna, Wisconsin 54130.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-30, adopted February
22, 1996, and released March 6, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the Commission's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street,
NW., Washington,
[[Page 10302]]
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Services,
Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-
3800.
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 contact.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Television broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-5901 Filed 3-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-5900 Radio Broadcasting Services; Canton, IL and Canton, MO
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 10300]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5900]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-32; RM-8719]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Canton, IL and Canton, MO
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition filed by Bick
Broadcasting Co., proposing the substitution of Channel 265C2 for
Channel 265C3 at Canton, Missouri, and modification of the license for
Station KRRY to specify the higher class channel. The coordinates for
Channel 265C2 at Canton, Missouri, are 40-07-33 and 91-31-42. To
accommodate the upgrade at Canton, Missouri, we shall propose to
substitute Channel 252A for vacant Channel 265A at Canton, Illinois, at
coordinates 40-32-46 and 90-04-59. In the event there is no interest
expressed for retention of a channel in Canton, Illinois, during the
comment cycle in this proceeding, we shall delete the channel. We shall
propose to modify the license for Station KRRY in accordance with
Section 1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules and will not accept
competing expressions of interest for the use of the channel or require
petitioner to demonstrate the availaility of an additional equivalent
class channel for use by such parties.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before April 29, 1996, and reply
comments on or before May 14, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner, as follows: Bud James, President, Bick
Broadcasting Co., 119 North Third Street, Hannibal, Missouri 63401.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-32, adopted February
21, 1996, and released March 6, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the Commission'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 Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,
Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.
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 contact.
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. 96-5900 Filed 3-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-5899 Radio Broadcasting Services; Chester and Richmond, VA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10300-10301]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5899]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-29; RM-8731]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Chester and Richmond, VA
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition by Hoffman
Communications, Inc., licensee of Station WDYL(FM), Channel 289A,
Chester, Virginia, proposing the substitution of Channel 266A for
Channel 289A and modification of Hoffman's construction permit to
specify operation on the alternate Class A channel. In order to
accommodate the substitution at Chester, we also propose to substitute
Channel 289A for unoccupied but applied for Channel 266A at Richmond,
Virginia. See Supplementary Information, infra.
[[Page 10301]]
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before April 29, 1996, and reply
comments on or before May 14, 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: John R.
Feore, Jr. and Andrew C. Fish, Doe, Lohnes & Albertson, 1255 23rd
Street, NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20037 (Counsel for 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. 96-29, adopted February
22, 1996, and released March 6, 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.
Channel 266A can be allotted to Chester in compliance with the
Commission's minimum distance separation requirements and can be used a
the transmitter site specified in Station WDYL(FM)'s construction
permit. The coordinates for Channel 266A at Chester are 37-22-58 and
77-25-41. Channel 289A can be allotted to Richmond, Virginia, in
compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation
requirements and can be used at all four sites specified in the five
applications for Channel 266A at Richmond. The coordinates for Channel
289A at Richmond as proposed in the pending applications are: 37-30-23
and 77-30-15; 37-30-11 and 77-30-08; 37-30-52 and 77-30-28; and, 37-30-
02 and 77-30-09.
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. 96-5899 Filed 3-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-5893 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Hearings
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10302-10303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5893]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 642
[I.D. 022996C]
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Hearings
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Public hearings; requests for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic
Council) will hold three public hearings on Draft Amendment 8 to the
Fishery Management Plan for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the
Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP) and its draft supplemental
environmental impact statement (draft SEIS).
DATES: Written comments will be accepted until 5 p.m., March 26, 1996.
The hearings are scheduled as follows:
1. March 18, 1996, 7 p.m. until business is completed, Ronkonkoma,
NY
2. March 19, 1996, 7 p.m. until business is completed, Toms River,
NJ
3. March 20, 1996, 7 p.m. until business is completed, Salisbury,
MD
ADDRESSES: Copies of the draft amendment are available from Susan
Buchanan, Public Information Officer (803) 571-4366.
Written comments may be sent by U.S. mail, e-mail or fax to Bob
Mahood, Executive Director, SAFMC, One Southpark Circle, Suite 306,
Charleston, SC 29407. Fax: 803-769-4520, E-Mail: [email protected].
The draft amendment will be available to the public at the hearings.
The hearings will be held at the following locations:
1. Ronkonkoma--Holiday Inn, 3845 Veterans Memorial Highway,
Ronkonkoma, NY 11799; telephone: 516-585-9500
2. Tom's River--Holiday Inn, 290 Route 37 East, Tom's River, NJ
08753; telephone; 908-244-4000
3. Salisbury--Holiday Inn, 2625 N Salisbury Blvd., Salisbury, MD
21801; telephone: 410-742-7194
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Buchanan, 803-571-4366.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils
(Councils) will hold public hearings on Draft Amendment 8 to the FMP
and its draft SEIS. Draft Amendment 8 includes management measures for
the fisheries for king and Spanish mackerel, cobia, and dolphin (fish).
These measures would apply only in the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic
Council's (Mid-Atlantic Council) jurisdiction, apply only in the Gulf
of Mexico Fishery Management Council's (Gulf Council) jurisdiction, or
apply in all three Councils' jurisdictions.
Proposed actions that would affect only the stocks and area under
the jurisdiction of the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Councils are as
follows: Harvest Spanish mackerel only with hook and line, run-around
nets, stab nets, and cast nets (along Florida's east coast nets are
limited to run-around gillnets, 800 yd (732 m) in length, and a 1-hour
soak time); harvest king mackerel in the South Atlantic Council's area
of jurisdiction, south of Cape Lookout, NC, with hook-and-line gear
(multigear trips consisting of mixed species, including king mackerel,
are allowed north of Cape Lookout NC, but are not to exceed 3,500 lbs
(1.6 mt)); allow the harvest of other directed coastal pelagics with
surface longline, hook-and-line including manual, electric, or
hydraulic rod and reels, and bandit gear only; allow the use of cast
nets and another nets with mesh sizes no larger than 2 1/2 inch (6.35
cm) stretch mesh and no longer than 50 yd (46 m) for the purpose of
catching bait; allow the introduction of experimental gear; provide
that non-conforming gear be limited to the bag limit for species with a
bag limit (no limit for species without a bag limit); establish a 5-
year moratorium, beginning on October 16, 1995, on the issuance of
commercial vessel permits with a king mackerel endorsement; provide for
the transfer of vessel permits to other vessels; require that anyone
applying for a commercial vessel permit demonstrate that 25 percent of
annual income, or $5,000, be from commercial fishing; and require, as a
condition for a Federal commercial or charter vessel permit, that the
applicant comply with the more restrictive of state or Federal rules
when fishing in state waters; extend the range of cobia management
North to the EEZ off New York; and, establish the following commercial
trip limits for Atlantic king mackerel: 3,500 lb (l.6 mt) in the ocean
area from Volusia/Flagler County, FL, to the New York/Connecticut
border from April 1 to March 31, 3,500 lb (1.6 mt) in the ocean area
from Brevard/Volusia County, FL, to Volusia/ Flagler, FL, from April 1
to October 31, 50 fish in the ocean area from Brevard/Volusia to Dade/
Monroe, FL, from April 1 to October 31, and a 125 fish limit in the EEZ
off Monroe County from April 1 to October 31.
Amendment 8 also includes the following measures that apply to the
three Councils' jurisdictions: Require commercial dealer permits to buy
and sell coastal pelagic fish managed under the FMP and require that
dealers keep and make available records of purchase by vessel,
recreational bag and commercial trip limit alternatives for cobia and
dolphin (fish), retention of up to five damaged king mackerel not to be
sold by vessels under commercial trip limits, changes to the procedure
used to set total allowable catch, and changes to definitions of
overfishing and optimum yield. Additional options are included in the
draft amendment.
In December 1995, the Gulf Council held public hearings on proposed
measures in Amendment 8 applying only to the area and stocks under its
jurisdiction.
Special Accommodations
These hearings are physically accessible to people with
disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES)
by March 13, 1996.
[[Page 10303]]
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: March 6, 1996.
Donald J. Leedy,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-5893 Filed 3-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-5889 Clomazone; Proposed Tolerance
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10297-10298]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5889]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 5E4521/P644; FRL-5353-7]
RIN 2070-AB18
Clomazone; Proposed Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to establish a tolerance for residues of the
herbicide 2-(2-chlorophenyl)methyl-4,4-dimethyl-3-isoxazolidinone (also
referred to in this document as clomazone) in or on the raw
agricultural commodity snap bean. 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 document control number [PP 5E4521/
P644], must be received on or before April 12, 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 5E4521/P644]. Electronic conunents 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 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. Inforrnation 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 2046O.
office location and telephone number: Sixth Floor, Crystal Station #1,
28OO Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 308-8783; e-
mail: Jamerson.H[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 O8903, has submitted pesticide
petition (PP) 5E4521 to EPA on behalf of the Agricultural Experiment
Stations of Arkansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, 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 180.425 by establishing a tolerance for
residues of the herbicide clomazone in or on the raw agricultural
commodity snap bean at 0.05 part 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 tolerance include:
1. A l-year feeding study in dogs, which were fed diets containing
100, 500, 2,500, and 5,000 ppm, with a no-observed-effect level (NOEL)
of 500 ppm (equivalent to 12.5 milligrams (mg)/kilogram (kg)/day). An
increase in the absolute and relative liver weights in male and female
dogs was observed at the 2,500 ppln dose level (equivalent to 62.5 mg/
kg/day).
2. A developmental toxicity study in rats with NOEL's for maternal
and developmental toxicity of 100 mg/kg/day. Maternal toxicity
(decreased locomotion, genital stain, and runny eyes) and developmental
toxicity (increased incidence of delayed ossification) were observed in
rats at the 300 mg/kg/day dose level.
3. A developmental toxicity study in rabbits, which were given the
test chemical by gavage at doses of 30, 240, and 700 ppm, with NOEL's
for maternal and developmental toxicity of 240 mg/kg/day. Maternal
toxicity (decrease in body weight) and developmental toxicity (increase
in number of fetal resorptions) were observed in rabbits at the 700 mg/
kg/day dose level.
4. A 2-year feeding/carcinogenicity study in rats, which were fed
diets containing 20, 100, 500, 1,000, and 2,000 ppm, with a systemic
NOEL of 100 ppm (equivalent to 4.3 mg/kg/day) based on elevated
cholesterol, absolute and relative liver weights, and the incidence of
liver cytomegaly. There were no carcinogenic effects observed under the
conditions of the study at any dosage level tested.
5. A 2-year feeding/carcinogenicity study in mice, which were fed
diets containing 20, 100, 500, l,000 and 2,000 ppm, with a NOEL of 100
ppm (equivalent to 15 mg/kg/day) for systemic effects based on an
increase in white blood cell count. The study was negative for
carcinogenic effects at all dosage levels tested.
6. Mutagenic studies, including unscheduled DNA synthesis,
negative; reverse mutation (two studies in Salmonella), both negative
with/without activation; point mutation (CHO/HGPT), weakly positive
without activation; and in vivo cytogenetic (chromosomal aberration),
negative for mutagenicity.
The reference dose (RfD), based on the 2-year feeding study in rats
(NOEL of 4.3 mg/kg/day) and using an uncertainty factor of 100, is
calculated to be 0.043 mg/kg of body weight (bw)/day. The theoretical
maximum residue contribution (TMRC) from existing tolerances and the
proposed tolerance for snap bean is calculated to be 0.000065 mg/kg/
day, which utilizes less than 1 percent of the RfD for the U.S.
population. The TMRC for non-nursing infants (the population subgroup
most highly exposed) also utilizes less than 1 percent of the RfD. EPA
generally has no cause for concern for exposures below 100 percent of
the RfD.
The nature of the residue in plants is adequately understood. An
adequate analytical method is available for enforcement purposes. The
analytical method for enforcing this tolerance has been published in
the Pesticide Analytical Manual, Vol. II (PAM II).
[[Page 10298]]
There is no reasonable expectation that secondary residues will occur
in milk, eggs, or meat of livestock and poultry: there are no livestock
feed items associated with snap beans.
There are presently no actions pending against the continued
registration of this chemical.
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 3O 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.
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [PP 5E4521/P644] (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 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 (l) 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
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 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 2495O).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 29, 1996.
Peter Caulkins,
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. Section 180.425 is amended by revising the section heading and
in the table by adding alphabetically the entry for bean, snap to read
as follows:
Sec. 180.425 Clomazone; tolerances for residues.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts
Commodities per
million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bean, snap..................................................... 0.05
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-5889 Filed 3-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-5868 Upland Cotton User Marketing Certificate Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10289-10292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5868]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Commodity Credit Corporation
7 CFR Part 1427
RIN 0506-AE51
Upland Cotton User Marketing Certificate Program
AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule amends the regulations to set the payment
rate for exporters under the user marketing certificate program on the
date it is determined by the Commodity Credit Corporation the cotton is
shipped. The new method for rate-setting would be effective on the day
the final rule is published. Comments are requested on this change.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule, as well as comments on
alternatives to this proposal, must be received on or before April 12,
1996 to be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments on the proposed rule to: Director, Fibers
Analysis Division (FAD), Farm Service Agency (FSA), U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), room 3758-S, Ag Code 0515, P.O. Box 2415,
Washington, DC 20013-2415. Comments on the information collection must
be sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the address
listed in the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this preamble. A copy
of these comments may also be sent to the Department representative at
the address shown following the OMB address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Bjorlie, Director, FAD, FSA,
USDA, room 3758-S, Ag Code 0515, P.O. Box 2415, Washington, DC 20013-
2415 or call (202) 720-6734. A cost benefit analysis of this rule is
available on request.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule has been determined to be significant and was
reviewed by OMB under Executive Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
It has been determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not
applicable to this proposed rule because the Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other
provision of law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with
respect to the subject matter of these determinations.
Environmental Evaluation
It has been determined by environmental evaluation that this action
will have no significant impact on the quality of the human
environment. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an
Environmental Impact Statement is needed.
Federal Assistance Program
The titles and numbers of the Federal Assistance Programs, as found
in the catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, to which this proposed
rule applies are: Commodity Loans and Purchases--10.051 and Cotton
Production Stabilization--10.052.
Executive Order 12778
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order
12778. The provisions of the rule do not preempt State laws, are not
retroactive, and do not involve administrative appeals.
Executive Order 12372
This program/activity is not subject to the provisions of Executive
Order 12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation with State
and local officials. See notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V,
published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983).
Background
Since the user marketing certificate (Step 2) program began, the
payment rate for exporters has been the subject of discussion and
controversy, particularly with regard to the bunching of export sales
registrations during a week following a period of zero payment rates or
a week when the continuing availability of the payments is particularly
uncertain. All segments of the cotton industry have expressed interest
in making changes. Whereas Step 2 may have been conceived as a program
to provide regular payments to exporters based on actual sales made
according to historical timing patterns, in reality the existence of
the payments has changed the timing of the sales. Bunching of
registrations refers to the practice of registering large volumes of
cotton export sales with CCC whenever there is a reasonable expectation
that such action will capture a larger than average payment rate or a
rate which may be available for only a short time. Bunching has
occurred because the payment rate has been fixed for the exporter as of
the date the sale is registered with CCC. The proposed rule would amend
the regulations to set the payment rate for exporters under the user
marketing certificate program on the date on which it is determined by
CCC that the cotton is shipped, rather than the date on which the sale
is registered with CCC. Thus, there would no longer be an incentive to
sell large volumes of cotton in advance solely in order to register the
sales with CCC and capture a larger payment rate. Under the proposed
rule, the rate could not be captured in that way.
Regulations covering payment rate determinations for cotton
contracted by exporters for shipment before the final rule is published
in the Federal Register and for cotton consumed by domestic users are
not changed by this proposed rule. Payment rates for such cotton will
be determined in accordance with existing regulations and under the
terms and conditions of the Upland Cotton Domestic User/Exporter
Agreement, CCC-1045, (4-15-94), Revision 2 (existing agreement),
through the day the final rule is published in the Federal Register.
Publication of the final rule in the Federal Register and the effective
date of the revised agreement will be coordinated so that the existing
agreement will remain in effect until the revised agreement goes into
effect. To continue to participate in the Step 2 program, exporters and
domestic users must sign and return the revised agreement to CCC.
[[Page 10290]]
This proposed rule also updates the address of the Kansas City
Commodity Office shown in 7 CFR 1427.105, abbreviates several terms
used to describe price quotations used in the calculation of the Step 2
payment rate, and updates the ending date for the Step 2 program to
July 31, 1998, in accordance with current legislation.
Alternative policies to address problems with the Step 2 program
such as rules similar to those in effect under the Export Enhancement
Program for exports of agricultural commodities have been suggested for
cotton exports under the Step 2 program. Such rules could include a
requirement to provide evidence of a bona fide export sales contract,
required identification of the end user of cotton sold under a covered
contract, required reporting of contract terms, including the amount of
the Step 2 payment applied to the sales price, and prohibition of sales
through third parties or sales through foreign affiliates of a
participating exporter. Comments on these alternative policies, as well
as other policies affecting the Step 2 program which may be of interest
to the public, will be considered along with comments on the proposed
rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The amendments to 7 CFR part 1427 set forth in this proposed rule
involve a change in the existing information collection requirements
which were previously cleared by OMB under the provisions of 44 U.S.C.
35. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, CCC has
submitted a request to OMB for a revision to an information collection
currently approved in support of the upland cotton user marketing
certificate program and related reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Title: Upland Cotton Domestic User/Exporter Agreement and Payment
Program.
OMB Control Number: 0560-0136.
Expiration Date of Approval: April 30, 1997.
Type of Request: Revision of a Currently-Approved Information
Collection.
Abstract: Section 103B(a)(5)(E) authorizes payments to eligible
U.S. mills and exporters under the upland cotton user marketing
certificate program if, for 4 consecutive weeks, (1) the U.S. Northern
Europe price exceeds the Northern Europe price by more than 1.25 cents
per pound, and (2) the upland cotton adjusted world price is less than
130 percent of the current-crop base quality loan rate. Currently, to
participate in the program, mills and exporters must sign an agreement
with CCC (CCC-1045) and agree to report weekly to CCC their sales
contracts (in the case of exporters) and their consumption of cotton
(in the case of domestic mills) as a basis for making payments. The
proposal would change the requirement for exporters who would report
their weekly exports instead of their weekly sales, necessitating a
revision in the exporter application for payment (CCC-1045-1). Although
the change does not affect domestic users, to continue in the program,
all program participants will be required to sign a new agreement which
incorporates the changes for exporters.
Certain information collections for both exporters and domestic
users have been required since the beginning of the program but were
included in the last burden statement under the general category
``Normal Business Records.'' To more accurately assess the paperwork
burden, the individual reports have been identified. CCC provides a
suggested format for the reports but program participants may submit
the same information to CCC in a format that is convenient for them.
Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this information
collection is estimated to average 14 minutes per response.
Respondents: U.S. cotton exporters and U.S. cotton mills.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 300.
Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 65.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 4,675 hours.
Comments are requested regarding (a) whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including
the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be
collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Copies
of the information collection may be obtained from Janise Zygmont at
the above address.
Submit comments on the information collection to: Desk Officer for
Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. 20503 and to Janise Zygmont,
FAD, FSA, USDA, room 3756-S, Ag Code 0515, P.O. Box 2415, Washington,
DC 20013-2415. All comments regarding this information collection will
be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All
comments will also become a matter of public record.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection(s) of
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect
if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect
the deadline for the public to comment to the Department on the
proposed regulations.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1427
Cotton, Loan programs/agriculture, Marketing certificate programs,
Price support programs, Warehouses.
Accordingly, 7 CFR part 1427 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 1427-COTTON
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1427 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1421, 1423, 1425, 1444, and 1444-2; 15
U.S.C. 714b and 714c.
2. Section 1427.100 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (a) and revising paragraphs (b)(1) introductory text,
(b)(1)(i) and (b)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 1427.100 Applicability.
(a) The regulations in this subpart are applicable during the
period beginning August 1, 1991, and ending July 31, 1998. * * *
(b)(1) During the period beginning August 1, 1991, and ending July
31, 1998, CCC shall issue marketing certificates or cash payments to
domestic users and exporters in accordance with this subpart in a week
following a consecutive 4-week period in which--
(i) The Friday through Thursday average price quotation for the
lowest-priced United States growth, as quoted for Middling one and
three thirty-seconds inch (``M 1\3/32\ inch'') cotton, delivered C.I.F.
(cost, insurance and freight) northern Europe (``U.S. Northern Europe
(USNE) price'') exceeds the Friday through Thursday average price
quotation for the five lowest-priced growths, as quoted for M 1\3/32\
inch cotton, delivered C.I.F. northern Europe (``Northern Europe (NE)
price'') by more than 1.25 cents per pound; and
(ii) * * *
[[Page 10291]]
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of this
section, CCC shall not issue marketing certificates or cash payments
if, for the immediately preceding consecutive 10-week period, the USNE
price, adjusted for the value of any certificates or cash payments
issued under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, exceeds the NE price by
more than 1.25 cents per pound.
* * * * *
3. Section 1427.103 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 1427.103 Eligible upland cotton.
(a) * * *
(1) Opened by an eligible domestic user on or after August 1, 1991,
and on or before July 31, 1998, or, excluding cotton covered under
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, exported by an eligible exporter on
or after [date on which final rule is published in the Federal
Register] and on or before July 31, 1998, during a Friday through
Thursday period in which a payment rate, determined in accordance with
Sec. 1427.107, is in effect, and which meets the requirements of
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section;
(2) Sold for export by an eligible exporter under a written
contract entered into on or after August 1, 1991, and on or before
[date immediately following date on which the final rule is published
in the Federal Register] during a Friday through Thursday period in
which a payment rate, determined in accordance with Sec. 1427.107, is
in effect and which is exported by the eligible exporter by not later
than July 31, 1998, and which meets the requirements of paragraphs (b)
and (c) of this section.
* * * * *
4. Section 1427.105 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1427.105 Upland Cotton Domestic User/Exporter Agreement.
* * * * *
(b) Upland Cotton Domestic User/Exporter Agreements may be obtained
from Cotton and Rice Inventory Branch, Cotton and Rice Division, Kansas
City Commodity Office, P. O. Box 419205, Kansas City, Missouri 64141-
6205. * * *
* * * * *
5. Section 1427.107 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)
introductory text, (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), (a)(2) introductory text,
(b), (c), (d) introductory text, (e) introductory text, (f)(1)
introductory text, (f)(1)(ii), and (f)(2), and adding a new paragraph
(f)(1)(iii) to read as follows:
Sec. 1427.107 Payment rate.
(a) * * *
(1) For exporters for cotton shipped after (date of publication of
final rule in the Federal Register) (excluding cotton covered under
paragraph (a)(2) of this section) and for domestic users for bales
opened during the period--
(i) Beginning the Friday following August 1 and ending the week in
which the Northern Europe current (NEc) price and the Northern Europe
forward (NEf) price first become available, the payment rate shall be
the difference between the USNE price, minus 1.25 cents per pound, and
the NE price in the fourth week of a consecutive 4-week period in which
the USNE price exceeded the NE price each week by more than 1.25 cents
per pound, and the adjusted world price (AWP) did not exceed the
current crop-year loan level for the base quality of upland cotton by
more than 130 percent.
(ii) Beginning the Friday through Thursday week after the week in
which the NEc price and the NEf price first become available and ending
the Thursday following July 31, the payment rate shall be the
difference between the USNEc price, minus 1.25 cents per pound, and the
NEc price in the fourth week of a consecutive 4-week period in which
the USNE price exceeded the NEc price each week by more than 1.25 cents
per pound, and the AWP did not exceed the current crop-year loan level
for the base quality of upland cotton by more than 130 percent.
(iii) * * *
(2) For exporters, prior to [date of publication of final rule in
the Federal Register]--
* * * * *
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this
section, no payment rate shall be established in a week following a
consecutive 10-week period in which the USNE price, or as the case may
be, the USNEc price or the USNEf price, adjusted for the value of any
certificate or cash payment issued in accordance with paragraph (a) of
this section, exceeds the NE price, or as the case may be, the NEc
price or the NEf price, by more than 1.25 cents per pound.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this
section, whenever a 4-week period contains a combination of NE prices
only for one to three weeks and NEc prices and NEf prices only for one
to three weeks such as occurs in the spring when the NE price is
succeeded by the NEc price and the NEf price (``spring transition
period'') and at the start of a new marketing year when the NEc price
and the NEf price are succeeded by the NE price (marketing year
transition):
(1) Under paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(2)(i) of this section,
during the marketing year transition, the NEf price and the USNEf price
in combination with the NE price and the USNE price shall be taken into
consideration during such 4-week periods to determine if a payment is
to be issued.
(2) Under paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), (a)(2)(ii), and (a)(2)(v) of this
section, during the spring transition period, the NEc price and the
USNEc price in combination with the NE price and the USNE price shall
be taken into consideration during such 4-week periods to determine if
a payment is to be issued.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, for
contracts made by exporters prior to [date of publication of final rule
in the Federal Register], that specify shipment of the cotton by not
later than September 30--
* * * * *
(e) For U.S. cotton sold by the exporter under an optional origin
contract prior to [date following date of publication of final rule in
the Federal Register], the payment rate * * *
(f) * * *
(1) With respect to the determination of the USNE price, the USNEc
price, the USNEf price, the NE price, the NEc price and the NEf price--
(i) * * *
(ii) If no daily quotes are available for the entire 5-day period
for either or both the USNE price and the NE price during the period
when only one daily price quotation is available for each growth quoted
for M 1\3/32\ inch cotton, delivered C.I.F. northern Europe; or the
USNEc price and the NEc price; or the USNEf price and the NEf price,
that week will not be taken into consideration, in which case, CCC may
establish a payment rate at a level it determines appropriate, taking
into consideration the payment rate determined in accordance with
paragraph (a) of this section for the latest available week.
(iii) Beginning [date of publication of final rule in the Federal
Register], if no daily quotes are available for the entire 5-day period
for either or both the USNEc price and the NEc price, the marketing
year transition shall be implemented immediately as provided for in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(2) With respect to the determination of the USNE price, the USNEc
price and the USNEf price, if a quote for either the U.S. Memphis
territory or the California/Arizona territory as quoted for M 1\3/32\
inch cotton, delivered C.I.F.
[[Page 10292]]
northern Europe, is not available for each or any day of the 5-day
period, the available quote will be used.
* * * * *
6. Section 1427.108 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2),
(c)(1), and (c)(2), and adding a new paragraph (c)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1427.108 Payment.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) The net weight (gross weight minus the weight of bagging and
ties) as determined in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section,
of eligible upland cotton as determined in accordance with paragraph
(c) of this section.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Purchased by the domestic users on the date the bale is opened
in preparation for consumption;
(2) From August 1, 1991, through [date immediately following date
on which the final rule is published in the Federal Register], sold by
the exporter on the date the contract for sale is confirmed in writing;
and
(3) Excluding cotton covered under paragraph (c)(2) of this
section, through July 31, 1998, exported by the exporter on the date
that CCC determines is the date on which the cotton is shipped.
* * * * *
7. Section 1427.109 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 1427.109 Contract cancellations.
(a) * * *
(1) All undelivered (open) export contracts (including optional
origin export contracts) outstanding as of the later of the date the
Agreement (CCC-1045, 8-1-91) was executed by the exporter or August 29,
1991;
(2) Any export contracts that were canceled, or amended to reduce
the contract quantity, between the later of June 18, 1991, or 75 days
prior to the date the Agreement (CCC-1045, 8-1-91) was executed by the
exporter and the later of the date the Agreement (CCC-1045, 8-1-91) was
executed by the exporter, or August 29, 1991, which are not replaced by
the later of the date the Agreement (CCC-1045, 8-1-91) was executed by
the exporter or August 29, 1991; and
(3) All new export contracts entered into by the exporter on or
after August 30, 1991, and on or before [date immediately following
date on which the final rule is published in the Federal Register].
Signed at Washington, D.C., on March 6, 1996.
Grant Buntrock,
Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation.
[FR Doc. 96-5868 Filed 3-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.