issue-1996-07-01•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-07-01
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-07-01
issue-1996-07-01Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-07-01Proposed 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. 96-16698 Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 127 (Monday, July 1, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33882-33886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16698]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
44 CFR Part 67
[Docket No. FEMA-7184]
Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Technical information or comments are requested on the
proposed base (1% annual chance) flood elevations and proposed base
flood elevation modifications for the communities listed below. The
base flood elevations and modified base flood elevations are the basis
for the floodplain management measures that the community is required
either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order
to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP).
DATES: The comment period is ninety (90) days following the second
publication of this proposed rule in a newspaper of local circulation
in each community.
ADDRESSES: The proposed base flood elevations for each community are
available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer
of each
[[Page 33883]]
community. The respective addresses are listed in the following table.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael K. Buckley, P.E., Chief,
Hazard Identification Branch, Mitigation Directorate, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
proposes to make determinations of base flood elevations and modified
base flood elevations for each community listed below, in accordance
with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42
U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed base flood and modified base flood elevations,
together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR
60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed
to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are
more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The
community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or
pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional
entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain
management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after
these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these
buildings.
National Environmental Policy Act
This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements
of 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact
assessment has been prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Acting Associate Director, Mitigation Directorate, certifies
that this proposed rule is exempt from the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act because proposed or modified base flood
elevations are required by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973,
42 U.S.C. 4104, and are required to establish and maintain community
eligibility in the NFIP. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been
prepared.
Regulatory Classification
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the
criteria of Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
Executive Order 12612 Federalism
This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism
implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26,
1987.
Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Section
2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR Part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 67--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 67 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.
Sec. 67.4 [Amended]
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec. 67.4 are
proposed to be amended as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#Depth in feet above
ground. *Elevation in
State City/town/county Source of flooding Location feet. (NGVD)
-------------------------
Existing Modified
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas............................. Adona (City) Perry Howell Creek............................. At confluence with Rocky Cypress Creek.................... None *363
County.
Approximately 400 feet upstream of Locust Road............ None *411
Rocky Cypress Creek...................... Approximately 6,950 feet downstream of Railroad Street.... None *339
Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of Railroad Street...... None *366
Maps are available for inspection at the City of Adona, City Hall, Highway 10 West, Adona, Arkansas.
Send comments to The Honorable Bill Greene, Mayor, City of Adona, P.O. Box 101, Adona, Arkansas 72001.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas............................. Houston (City) Perry West Fork Mill Creek..................... Approximately 450 feet upstream of Little Rock and Western N/A *286
County. Railroad bridge.
Approximately 1,650 feet upstream of Route 113 bridge..... N/A *286
West Fork Mill Creek Tributary 1......... Approximately 200 feet above confluence with West Fork N/A *286
Mill Creek.
Approximately 250 feet upstream of Route 216 bridge....... N/A *297
West Fork Mill Creek Tributary 2......... Approximately 650 feet upstream of confluence with West N/A *287
Fork Mill Creek.
Approximately 300 feet upstream of private drive N/A *295
(northern).
Houston Creek............................ Approximately 1,400 feet downstream of Little Rock and N/A *305
Western Railroad bridge.
Approximately 1,100 feet upstream of Route 113 bridge..... N/A *329
[[Page 33884]]
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, City of Houston, Main Street, Houston, Arkansas.
Send comments to The Honorable Jerry Lawson, Mayor, City of Houston, P.O. Box 166, Houston, Arkansas 72070.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas............................. Searcy (City) White Deener Creek............................. At confluence with Little Red River....................... *221 *221
County.
Just upstream of North Main Street........................ *221 *221
Approximately 100 feet upstream of North Maple (Highway *223 *225
16).
Approximately 100 feet downstream of Ella Street.......... *232 *233
Gin Creek................................ At confluence with Deener Creek........................... *221 *221
Just upstream of Davis Drive.............................. *221 *221
Maps are available for inspection at the City of Searcy, City Hall, 401 West Arch, Searcy, Arkansas.
Send comments to The Honorable David Evans, Mayor, City of Searcy, 401 West Arch, Searcy, Arkansas 72143.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas............................. Washington County and Middle Fork White River.................. Approximately 0.22 mile upstream of Highway 16............ None *1,182
Incorporated Areas.
Just downstream of Harris Drive (Extended)................ None *1.192
White River.............................. Approximately 2.8 miles downstream of Highway 74.......... None *1,181
Just downstream of Highway 74............................. None *1,195
Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of East First Avenue...... None *1,215
Maps are available for inspection at the Washington County Courthouse, 2 North College, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Send comments to The Honorable Charles Johnson, Washington County Judge, 2 North College, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701.
Maps are available for inspection at the City of Fayetteville, City Hall, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Send comments to The Honorable Fred Hanna, Mayor, City of Fayetteville, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701.
Maps are available for inspection at the City of Elkins, City Hall, 201 West First Street, Elkins, Arkansas.
Send comments to The Honorable Barbara King, Mayor, City of Elkins, P.O. Box 331, Elkins, Arkansas 72727.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California........................... Grass Valley (City) Wolf Creek............................... At corporate limits (approximately 4,100 feet downstream None *2,220
Nevada County. of confluence of Little Wolf Creek).
At confluence of Little Wolf Creek........................ *2,314 *2,312
Just downstream of Freeman Lane........................... *2,351 *2,351
Maps are available for inspection at the City of Grass Valley, 125 East Main Street, Grass Valley, California.
Send comments to The Honorable Devere Mautino, Mayor, City of Grass Valley, 125 East Main Street, Grass Valley, California 95945.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California........................... Nevada County Wolf Creek............................... At Allison Ranch Road..................................... None *2,041
(Unincorporated Areas).
Just downstream of Marlor Bridge.......................... None *2,066
Approximately 2,950 feet upstream of Marlor Bridge........ None *2,110
Approximately 100 feet upstream of private bridge......... None *2,206
Approximately 4,050 feet upstream of confluence of Allison None *2,300
Ranch Ditch.
Just upstream of Brunswick Road........................... None *2,605
Approximately 2,980 feet upstream of Brunswick Road....... None *2,677
Little Wolf Creek Approximately 3,300 feet above confluence with Wolf Creek. None *2,451
Approximately 3,740 feet above confluence with Wolf Creek. None *2,455
Maps are available for inspection at Nevada County, 950 Maidu Avenue, Nevada City, California.
Send comments to The Honorable Karen Knecht, Chairperson, Nevada County Board of Supervisors, 950 Maidu Avenue, Nevada City, California 95959-8617.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California........................... San Joaquin County North Fork Mokelumne River............... At divergence from South Fork Mokelumne River............. *15 *15
(Unincorporated Areas).
Approximately 5,500 feet upstream of divergence from South *15 *15
Fork Mokelumne River.
[[Page 33885]]
Approximately 14,000 feet upstream of divergence from None *18
South Fork Mokelumne River.
At Interstate Highway 5................................... None *19
At confluence with Cosumnes River......................... None *19
Maps are available for inspection at the San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 1810 East Hazelton Avenue, Stockton, California.
Send comments to The Honorable Robert J. Cabral, Chairman, San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors, 222 East Weber Avenue, Room 701, Stockton, California 95202.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri............................. Butler County Pike Creek............................... Just upstream of U.S. Highway 67 southbound............... *339 *339
(Unincorporated Areas).
Approximately 800 feet upstream of Roxie Road............. *342 *340
Just upstream of Highway PP............................... *345 *346
Approximately 800 feet upstream of confluence of North None *347
Branch Pike Creek.
North Branch Pike Creek.................. Approximately 700 feet downstream of Holly Trail at the *410 *411
City of Poplar Bluff corporate limits.
Just upstream of Holly Trail............. At Oak Grove Road......................................... *421 *420
*427 *427
Maps are available for inspection at 114 Elm Street, Poplar Bluff, Missouri.
Send comments to The Honorable Bob Manns, Chairman, County Commissioners, County Courthouse, Poplar Bluff, Missouri 63901.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri............................. Poplar Bluff (City)..... Pike Creek............................... Just upstream of the Missouri Pacific Railroad............ *335 *336
Butler County........... At confluence of Black Creek............. *338 *339
At confluence of Sunset Creek............................. *342 *340
Approximately 400 feet downstream of confluence of North *347 *346
Branch Pike Creek.
North Branch Pike Creek.................. Approximately 350 feet upstream of confluence with Pike *348 *347
Creek.
Approximately 2,000 feet upstream of confluence with Pike *363 *364
Creek.
At confluence of East Fork Pike Creek..................... *383 *382
Approximately 100 feet upstream of Russell Road........... *409 *410
Just upstream of Oak Grove Road........................... *427 *427
Hogg Creek............................... At confluence with Pike Creek............................. *339 *339
Just upstream of Tremont Street.......... *345 *345
Approximately 150 feet upstream of Pershing Street........ *354 *354
Just upstream of Gray Street.............................. *393 *393
Just upstream of North 14th Street........................ *424 *422
Hogg Creek Tributary..................... At confluence with Hogg Creek............................. *349 *347
Approximately 500 feet upstream of confluence with Hogg *351 *351
Creek.
Just downstream of Highland Road.......................... *360 *358
Park Creek............................... Just upstream of 5th Street............................... *338 *338
At 6th Street............................................. *338 *339
Just upstream of 8th Street............................... *340 *340
Just upstream of Oakwood Drive............................ *346 *346
Shady Creek.............................. Approximately 400 feet downstream of North Main Street.... None *352
Approximately 150 feet upstream of Montclair Drive........ None *359
Just upstream of Fox Drive................................ None *379
Just upstream of Shady Lane............................... None *399
Approximately 500 feet upstream of Woodstone Road......... None *429
Woodlawn Branch.......................... Approximately 200 feet downstream of East Avondale Drive.. None *346
Just upstream of confluence of Clay Creek................. None *351
Just upstream of South Avondale Drive..................... None *354
[[Page 33886]]
Maps are available for inspection at the City of Poplar Bluff, 114 Elm Street, Poplar Bluff, Missouri.
Send comments to The Honorable Ron Black, Mayor, City of Poplar Bluff, P.O. Box 460, Poplar Bluff, Missouri 63902.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma............................. Adair County Caney Creek.............................. Approximately 3,900 feet downstream of confluence with None *976
(Unincorporated Areas). Spring Tributary.
Approximately 1,600 feet upstream of County Road.......... None *1,042
Approximately 1,850 feet upstream of County Road.......... None *1,044
Approximately 5,500 feet upstream of confluence with None *1,059
Eighth Street Tributary.
Approximately 1,600 feet upstream of Oklahoma Avenue...... None *1,118
Eigth Street Tributary................... At confluence with Caney Creek............................ None *1,054
Approximately 150 feet downstream of Eighth Street........ None *1,068
Master Drain Tributary................... At confluence with Caney Creek............................ None *1,050
Maps are available for inspection at the Adair County Courthouse, Stilwell, Oklahoma.
Send comments to The Honorable Darryll Wilson, Chairperson, Adair County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 169, Stilwell, Oklahoma 74960.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma............................. Stilwell (City) Adair Caney Creek.............................. Approximately 3,000 feet downstream of Olive Street (at None *1,042
County. the corporate limits).
Approximately 2,700 feet downstream of Olive Street (at None *1,044
the corporate limits).
Approximately 700 feet downstream of Olive Street (at the None *1,059
corporate limits).
Just downstream of Elm Street............................. None *1,085
Just upstream of Oklahoma Avenue (at the corporate limits) None *1,118
Eighth Street Tributary.................. Approximately 350 feet downstream of Eighth Street (at the None *1,065
corporate limits).
Approximately 100 feet downstream of Eighth Street (at the None *1,068
corporate limits).
Maps are available for inspection at the City Clerk's Office, 503 West Division, Stilwell, Oklahoma.
Send comments to The Honorable Neil Morton, Mayor, City of Stilwell, 503 West Division, Stilwell, Oklahoma 74960.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, ``Flood
Insurance'')
Dated: June 25, 1996.
Richard W. Krimm,
Acting Associate Director for Mitigation.
[FR Doc. 96-16698 Filed 6-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-04-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16697 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 127 (Monday, July 1, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33891-33895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16697]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 96-066; Notice 01]
RIN 2127-AG19
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment; Heavy Truck Conspicuity; Evaluation Plan
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Request for comment on proposed collection of information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA is initiating a study to evaluate the safety effects of
the Conspicuity Systems requirement (Section 5.7) of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.108, ``Lamps, Reflective Devices,
and Associated Equipment. To carry out the study, NHTSA has requested
that special motor vehicle crash data be collected by two state law
enforcement agencies. Before a Federal agency can collect certain
information, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal Agencies must solicit
public comment on the proposed collection of
[[Page 33892]]
information. In compliance with these procedures, NHTSA requests
comments on the issues contained at the end of this notice.
DATES: Comments must be received by August 30, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers set
forth above and be submitted to the Docket Section, NHTSA, Room 5109,
400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590 (Docket hours are from
9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday). It is requested, but not
required, that one original plus 2 copies of the comments be provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles J. Kahane, Chief, Evaluation
Division, Office of Strategic Planning and Evaluation, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC
20590. Telephone: (202) 366-1574. (For information on OMB processing
procedures for the proposed information collection, contact: Ed Kosek,
NHTSA Information Collection Clearance Officer, NHTSA, 400 Seventh
Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone (202) 366-2589).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In September 1992, the NHTSA amended FMVSS
Number 108 (49 CFR 571.108), ``Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment''. This revision, effective December 1, 1993,
requires that heavy truck trailers (i.e., those 80 or more inches in
width with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating over 10,000 pounds)
manufactured after this date be equipped with retroreflective material
(57 FR 58406). Two types of material are permitted--(1) retroreflective
sheeting, or tape, and (2) reflex reflectors. The purpose of the
material is to reduce traffic accidents, and resulting deaths and
injuries, by increasing the visibility of heavy truck trailer
combination vehicles and making them more conspicuous to other
motorists. Nighttime collisions of other vehicles into the sides and
rear of large tractor trailer trucks are the primary types of crashes
targeted to be reduced by the retroreflective material.
Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735), NHTSA is required to conduct periodic evaluations to assess
the effectiveness of the vehicle safety standards it has promulgated.
These studies estimate the actual safety benefits achieved by the
standards and provide a basis for assessing whether the standards are
functioning as intended. Typically, the evaluation studies consist of
the analyses of highway crash data which compare the experience of
vehicles equipped with a given standard with the experience of vehicles
not equipped with the standard. In addition to all trailers
manufactured since December 1993, which are required to have
conspicuity marking, some companies have also equipped their older
trailers with the material. Trailers equipped prior to December 1993
sometimes used colors and patterns which differ from those specified in
the standard. A data collection effort is planned to provide crash
information for the purpose of evaluating the safety effects of the
conspicuity requirement under FMVSS No.108. NHTSA will analyze the data
to estimate the safety benefits, in terms of crashes, injuries, and
fatalities avoided that can be attributed to the requirement.
It is proposed that the data be collected by state law enforcement
officers (i.e., state police) who investigate and report on highway
motor vehicle crashes as part of their regularly assigned duties. For
each crash involving a large truck trailer combination vehicle, the
information to be provided will consist of a copy of the standard state
accident report, which is regularly filed with applicable state
authorities, plus a special accident report supplement designed to
record data specific to the study of the effects of the retroreflective
material on the trailers. The officers investigating the heavy truck
crashes will complete the data items on the supplement for each such
crash occurring within their jurisdiction. Data from both the report
supplement and the corresponding state accident report are required in
order to evaluate the safety effects of the conspicuity standard. Two
states, Pennsylvania and Florida, are being proposed as the data
collection sites. All state-reported crashes of tractor trailer
combination vehicles which occur within the boundaries of the two
states will be reported. A tractor trailer combination vehicle is
defined as a truck tractor pulling one or two trailers--i.e., tractor
with semi-trailer or tractor with double trailers.
The data to be provided to NHTSA will consist of two parts. Part 1
will be a copy of the official state motor vehicle accident report
involving a heavy truck tractor combination vehicle that is filed with
the applicable authorities in the states where the study is being
conducted. Part 2 will consist of the special supplement to each state
motor vehicle accident report for the designated truck crashes. A copy
of the proposed supplement, ``Investigator's Supplementary Truck-
Tractor Trailer Accident Report,'' is shown in the accompanying
illustration. The instructions for completing the supplement are also
shown. The supplement would be printed as a one-page form with the
report form on one side and the instructions on the other side. In
order to have sufficient data for a definitive statistical evaluation,
it is proposed that the two states collect and provide the specified
information for a two-year period. The accident reports would be
collected at the state level and forwarded to NHTSA on a monthy basis.
NHTSA estimates that the reporting burden per heavy truck crash
report will average 30 minutes. This includes the time to review the
instructions, complete the accident report supplement, transmit the
information (state report plus supplement), and to coordinate and
oversee the collection at the state level. Based on recent crash
statistics from the two selected states, it is estimated that
approximately 2,000 reports of tractor trailer crashes per year will be
reported by each state. The number of respondents (officers who file
reports for the designated crashes) cannot be precisely determined, but
based on the annual number of crashes and the size of the law
enforcement agencies in the two states, the typical officer would
complete one report per year. In actuality, some officers may complete
no reports while others could complete several reports. This will be a
function of where, throughout the state road systems, the crashes
occur, and the specific officers who have investigation and reporting
jurisdiction over those areas at the time the crashes occur. The total
reporting burden for the proposed information collection project is
therefore best estimated on the basis of the total estimated number of
crashes expected to be reported. For the two study states over the two-
year period, it is estimated that 8,000 crashes will be reported. Thus,
the total reporting burden is estimated at 4,000 hours (8,000 crashes
times 0.5 hours per crash).
NHTSA has consulted with the two selected states and has obtained
their consent to support the agency in its evaluation study of
retroreflective marking on heavy truck trailers. In compliance with the
requirements of the Office of Management and Budget (5 CFR part 1320,
``Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements,'' effective August 29,
1995), NHTSA requests comments on the proposed collection of
information. Comments will be used by the agency in:
a. Evaluating whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including
[[Page 33893]]
whether the information will have practical utility;
b. Evaluating the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Enhancing the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
d. Minimizing 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, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
Submission of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments. All comments
received before the close of business on the comment closing date will
be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at
the above address both before and after that date. To the extent
possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be
considered.
Authority: 44 U. S. C. 3506 (c); delegation of authority at 49
CFR 1.50.
L. Robert Shelton,
Acting Associate Administrator for Plans and Policy.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[[Page 33894]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY96.060
[[Page 33895]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JY96.061
[FR Doc. 96-16697 Filed 6-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16676 Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary: Petition to Ban the Use of Motorized Personal Watercraft Within the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 127 (Monday, July 1, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 33876]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16676]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
15 CFR Part 922
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary: Petition to Ban
the Use of Motorized Personal Watercraft Within the Gulf of the
Farallones National Marine Sanctuary
AGENCY: Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (SRD), Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), National Ocean Service (NOS),
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of
Commerce (DOC).
ACTION: Notice of receipt of a petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has
received a petition from the Environmental Action Committee of West
Marin County to ban the use of motorized personal watercraft within the
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ed Ueber at 415-556-3509 or Elizabeth Moore at 301-713-3141.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf of the Farallones National Marine
Sanctuary (GFNMS) was designated in January 1981, and encompasses 948
square nautical miles of ocean and coastal waters off the coast of San
Francisco. The GFNMS presently has no regulations restricting the use
of motorized personal watercraft.
The Sanctuaries and Reserves Division within NOAA's National Ocean
Service (NOS) received a petition on April 18, 1996, from the
Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, California (EAC) to ban
the use of motorized personal watercraft in the GFNMS. EAC believes
that ``the use of motorized personal watercraft * * * is completely
incompatible with the existence of a marine sanctuary,'' and gives such
reasons as the danger of such craft to biological resources; danger to
other human users; noise, water, and air pollution; and incompatibility
with other Sanctuary uses such as mariculture and small non-motorized
watercraft. NOS is reviewing the petition and will notify the
petitioner of its decision whether or not to proceed with a rulemaking
to ban the use of motorized personal watercraft in the GFNMS. If NOS
decides to initiate rulemaking proceedings, then the public will be
provided with an opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking in
accordance with the procedures of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act
and the Administrative Procedures Act.
Dated: June 25, 1996.
David L. Evans,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal
Zone Management.
[FR Doc. 96-16676 Filed 6-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-08-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16670 Clean Air Act Reclassification; Spokane, Washington Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Area
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 127 (Monday, July 1, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33879-33881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16670]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[WA 54-7127; FRL-5529-9]
Clean Air Act Reclassification; Spokane, Washington Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to find that the Spokane, Washington carbon
monoxide (CO) nonattainment area has not attained the CO national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) by the Clean Air Act (CAA)
mandated attainment date for moderate nonattainment areas, December 31,
1995. This proposed finding is based on EPA's review of monitored air
quality data for compliance with the CO NAAQS. If EPA takes final
action on this proposed finding, the Spokane CO nonattainment area will
be reclassified by operation of law as a serious nonattainment area.
The intended effect of such a reclassification would be to allow the
State additional time to submit a new State implementation plan (SIP)
providing for attainment of the CO NAAQS by no later than December 31,
2000, the CAA attainment deadline for serious CO areas.
DATES: Written comments on this proposal must be received by July 31,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Montel Livingston, SIP
Manager, Office of Air Quality, M/S OAQ-107, EPA Region 10, Docket #54-
7127, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. The rulemaking
docket for this notice is available for public review during normal
business hours at the following location: EPA, Region 10, Office of Air
Quality, M/S OAQ-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.
Copies of the docket are also available at the Washington Department of
Ecology, Attention Tami Dahlgren, Olympia, Washington 98504-7600,
telephone (360) 407-6830; and at the Spokane County Air Pollution
Control Authority, West 1101 College, Suite 403, Spokane, Washington
99201, telephone (509) 456-4727.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William M. Hedgebeth of the EPA Region
10 Office of Air Quality, (206) 553-7369.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. CAA Requirements and EPA Actions Concerning Designation and
Classifications
The CAA Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) were enacted on November 15,
1990. Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the CAA, each carbon monoxide (CO)
area designated nonattainment prior to enactment of the 1990
Amendments, such as the Spokane area, was designated nonattainment by
operation of law upon enactment of the 1990 Amendments. Under section
186(a) of
[[Page 33880]]
the CAA, each CO area designated nonattainment under section 107(d) was
also classified by operation of law as either ``moderate'' or
``serious'' depending on the severity of the area's air quality
problem. CO areas with design values between 9.1 and 16.4 parts per
million (ppm), such as the Spokane area, were classified as moderate.
These nonattainment designations and classifications were codified in
40 CFR part 81. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). States containing
areas that were classified as moderate nonattainment by operation of
law under section 107(d) were required to submit State implementation
plans (SIPs) designed to attain the CO national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) as expeditiously as practicable but no later than
December 31, 1995.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The moderate area SIP requirements are set forth in section
187(a) of the Act and differ depending on whether the area's design
value is below or above 12.7 ppm. The Spokane area has a design
value above 12.7 ppm. 40 CFR part 81.348.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Reclassification to a Serious Nonattainment Area
1. EPA has the responsibility, pursuant to sections 179(c) and
186(b)(2) of the CAA, of determining, within six months of the
applicable attainment date whether the Spokane area has attained the CO
NAAQS. Under section 186(b)(2)(A), if EPA finds that the area has not
attained the CO NAAQS, it is reclassified as serious by operation of
law. Pursuant to section 186(b)(2)(B) of the Act, EPA must publish a
notice in the Federal Register identifying areas which failed to attain
the standard and therefore must be reclassified as serious by operation
of law. EPA makes attainment determinations for CO nonattainment areas
based upon whether an area has two years (or eight consecutive
quarters) of clean air quality data.2 Section 179(c)(1) of the CAA
states that the attainment determination must be based upon an area's
``air quality as of the attainment date.'' Consequently, EPA will
determine whether an area's air quality has met the CO NAAQS by
December 31, 1995, based upon the most recent two years of air quality
data entered into the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS)
data base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See generally memorandum from Sally L. Shaver, Director, Air
Quality Strategies and Standards Division, EPA, to Regional Air
Office Directors, entitled ``Criteria for Granting Attainment Date
Extensions, Making Attainment Determinations, and Determinations of
Failure to Attain the NAAQS for Moderate CO Nonattainment Areas,''
October 23, 1995 (Shaver memorandum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA determines a CO nonattainment area's air quality status in
accordance with 40 CFR part 50.8 and EPA policy.\3\ EPA has promulgated
two NAAQS for CO: an 8-hour average concentration and a 1-hour average
concentration. Because there were no violations of the 1-hour standard
in the Spokane area in 1994 and 1995, this notice addresses only the
air quality status of the Spokane area with respect to the 8-hour
standard. The 8-hour CO NAAQS requires that not more than one non-
overlapping 8-hour average per year per monitoring site can exceed 9.0
ppm (values below 9.5 are rounded down to 9.0 and they are not
considered exceedances). The second exceedance of the 8-hour CO NAAQS
at a given monitoring site within the same year constitutes a violation
of the CO NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See memorandum from William G. Laxton, Director Technical
Support Division, entitled ``Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value
Calculations'', June 18, 1990. See also Shaver memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. SIP Requirements for Serious CO Areas: CO nonattainment areas
reclassified as serious under section 186(b)(2) of the CAA are required
to submit, within 18 months of the area's reclassification, SIP
revisions demonstrating attainment of the CO NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than December 31, 2000. The serious CO area
planning requirements are set forth in section 187(b) of the CAA. EPA
has issued two general guidance documents related to the planning
requirements for CO SIPs. The first is the ``General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the CAAA of 1990'' that sets forth EPA's
preliminary views on how the Agency intends to act on SIPs submitted
under Title I of the CAA. See generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992)
and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). The second general guidance document
for CO SIPs issued by EPA is the ``Technical Support Document to Aid
the States with the Development of Carbon Monoxide State Implementation
Plans,'' July 1992. If the Spokane area is reclassified to serious, the
State would have to submit a SIP revision to EPA that, in addition to
the attainment demonstration, includes: (1) A forecast of vehicle miles
travelled (VMT) for each year before the attainment year and provisions
for annual updates of these forecasts; (2) adopted contingency
measures; and (3) adopted transportation control measures and
strategies to offset any growth in CO emissions from growth in VMT or
number of vehicle trips. See CAA sections 187(a)(7), 187(a)(2)(A),
187(a)(3), 187(b)(2), and 187(b)(1). Upon reclassification, contingency
measures in the moderate area plan for the Spokane area must be
implemented.
C. Attainment Date Extensions
If a state does not have the two consecutive years of clean data
necessary to show attainment of the NAAQS, it may apply, under section
186(a)(4) of the CAA, for a one year attainment date extension. EPA
may, in its discretion, grant such an extension if the state has: (1)
Complied with the requirements and commitments pertaining to the
applicable implementation plan for the area, and (2) the area has
measured no more than one exceedance of the CO NAAQS at any monitoring
site in the nonattainment area in the year preceding the extension
year. Under section 186(a)(4), EPA may grant up to two such extensions
if these conditions have been met. Because the Spokane nonattainment
area had four exceedances in 1995, the area does not qualify for an
extension.
II. This Action
By today's action, EPA is proposing to find that the Spokane CO
nonattainment area has failed to demonstrate attainment of the CO NAAQS
by December 31, 1995. This proposed finding is based upon air quality
data showing violations of the CO NAAQS during 1995.
Ambient Air Monitoring Data: The following table lists the
monitoring site in the Spokane CO nonattainment area where the 8-hour
CO NAAQS has been exceeded during 1995, based on data validated by the
Washington Department of Ecology and entered into the AIRS data base.
Exceedances of 8-hour CO NAAQS for Spokane Nonattainment Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995
Monitoring site ----------------------------------------
Concentration Date of exceedance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd and Washington............. 10.4 ppm....... Jan. 9, 1995.
3rd and Washington............. 13.1 ppm....... Dec. 11, 1995.
3rd and Washington............. 11.2 ppm....... Dec. 12, 1995.
3rd and Washington............. 9.6 ppm........ Dec. 15, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In letters to EPA of February 20, 1996, and March 19, 1996, the
City of Spokane raised questions whether the monitoring data from the
CO monitor located at 3rd Avenue and Washington Street is
representative of the ambient air. In a letter to the City of Spokane
dated April
[[Page 33881]]
9, 1996, EPA Region 10 advised that any analysis of whether the monitor
was properly sited would need to be conducted in the context of 40 CFR
part 58, Appendix E, which provides specific criteria for the placement
of CO monitors, including consideration of the placement of such
monitors vis-a-vis street canyons and traffic corridors. In addition,
the State of Washington Department of Ecology provided EPA with copies
of four audit reports from 1995 which indicate that that CO monitor met
the Part 58 siting criteria and that the monitor was reporting
accurately with the acceptance criteria. This information was provided
to the City of Spokane in a letter dated May 28, 1996.
EPA believes that the 1995 exceedances are valid for use in
determining the attainment status of the Spokane area. EPA is therefore
proposing to find, based on the 1995 CO violations discussed above,
that the area did not attain the CO NAAQS by December 31, 1995.
III. Executive Order (EO) 12866
Under E.O. 12866, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), EPA is required to
determine whether regulatory actions are significant and therefore
should be subject to OMB review, economic analysis, and the
requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines a
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may meet at least one of the four criteria identified in
section 3(f), including, under paragraph (1), that the rule may ``have
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely
affect, in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.'' The
Agency has determined that the finding of failure to attain proposed
today would result in none of the effects identified in section 3(f).
Under section 186(b)(2) of the CAA, findings of failure to attain and
reclassification of nonattainment areas are based upon air quality
considerations and must occur by operation of law in light of certain
air quality conditions. They do not, in and of themselves, impose any
new requirements on any sectors of the economy. In addition, because
the statutory requirements are clearly defined with respect to the
differently classified areas, and because those requirements are
automatically triggered by classifications that, in turn, are triggered
by air quality values, findings of failure to attain and
reclassification cannot be said to impose a materially adverse impact
on State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
IV. Regulatory Flexibility
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations
of less than 50,000. As discussed in section III of this notice,
findings of failure to attain and reclassification of nonattainment
areas under section 186(b)(2) of the CAA do not in and of themselves
create any new requirements. Therefore, I certify that today's proposed
action does not have a significant impact on small entities.
V. Unfunded Mandates
Under sections 202, 203 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must assess whether various actions undertaken in association with
proposed or final regulations include a Federal mandate that may result
in estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to
State, local or tribal governments in the aggregate. EPA believes, as
discussed above, that the proposed finding of failure to attain and
reclassification of the Spokane nonattainment area are factual
determinations based upon air quality considerations and must occur by
operation of law and, hence, do not impose any Federal
intergovernmental mandate, as defined in section 101 of the Unfunded
Mandates Act.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Carbon monoxide.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: June 17, 1996.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-16670 Filed 6-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16669 Requirements for Management of Hazardous Contaminated Media (HWIR-media); Proposed RuleNotice of Extension of Comment Period
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 127 (Monday, July 1, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33881-33882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16669]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 262, 264, 268, 269 and 271
[FRL-5528-9]
Requirements for Management of Hazardous Contaminated Media
(HWIR-media); Proposed Rule--Notice of Extension of Comment Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule: notice of extension of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Since publication of the proposed rule for Requirements for
Management of Hazardous Contaminated Media (HWIR-media) (61 FR 18780
(April 29, 1996)), EPA has received several requests to extend the
comment period. Today, the Agency is extending the comment period 30
days to August 28, 1996.
DATES: The comment period on the proposed rule for Requirements for
Management of Hazardous Contaminated Media (61 FR 18780) is extended
from July 29, 1996 to August 28, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Commenters on the HWIR-media proposal must send an original
and two copies of their comments referencing Docket Number F-96-MHWP-
FFFFF to: (1) If using regular US Postal Service mail: RCRA Docket
Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA, HQ), 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, or (2) if using special delivery, such as
overnight express service : RCRA Docket Information Center (RIC),
Crystal Gateway One, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor,
Arlington, VA 22202. For other information regarding submitting
comments electronically or viewing the comments received and supporting
information, please refer to the proposed rule (61 FR 17870 (April 29,
1996)). The RCRA Information Center is located at Crystal Gateway One,
1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington Virginia and is
open for public inspection and copying of supporting information for
RCRA rules from 9 am to 4 pm Monday through Friday, except for Federal
holidays. The public must make an appointment to view docket materials
by calling (703) 603-9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages
from any regulatory document at no cost. Additional copies cost $0.15
per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, call the RCRA
Hotline at 1-800-424-9346 or TDD 1-800-553-7672 (hearing impaired).
[[Page 33882]]
Callers within the Washington Metropolitan Area must dial 703-412-9810
or TDD 703-412-3323 (hearing impaired). The RCRA Hotline is open
Monday-Friday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. For more
detailed information on specific aspects of the HWIR-media rulemaking,
contact Carolyn L. Hoskinson, Office of Solid Waste (5303W), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460, phone (703) 308-8626.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 29, 1996, EPA proposed Requirements
for Management of Hazardous Contaminated Media (HWIR-media). See 61 FR
17870. The Agency established a 90-day comment period and indicated
that comments on the proposal would be accepted until July 29, 1996.
EPA has received written requests to extend the comment period for
HWIR-media from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, WMX Technologies,
Inc., American Petroleum Institute, and the American Industrial Health
Council. The additional time requested was for 60 days.
As justification for a time extension, stakeholders noted: (1) the
significant impact on state superfund and hazardous waste programs, (2)
the need to coordinate comments with other organizations, (3) the
complexity of the rulemaking, (4) the overlap of this comment period
with the comment period for the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPR) for Corrective Action for releases from Solid Waste Management
Units at Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (61 FR 19432 (May 1,
1996)) which ends July 30, 1996, and (5) the need to gather and
evaluate data.
The Agency has decided to grant an additional 30 days beyond the
proposed 90-day comment period to allow stakeholders enough time to
review the provisions of the rulemaking and to formulate comments and
recommendations for the Agency's consideration in developing the final
rule. The Agency believes that 120 days allows for sufficient time for
commenters to evaluate the proposal, coordinate comments with others,
and gather and evaluate data. This 30 day extension will stagger the
comment deadlines for this proposed rule and the corrective action ANPR
(61 FR 19432) mentioned above.
The Agency does not believe that the 60 day extension requested is
necessary. The Agency has extensively involved stakeholders during the
preparation of the proposed rulemaking, beginning in January 1993. EPA
announced public meetings of the HWIR Federal Advisory Committee in the
Federal Register and the public was invited to attend and participate
in the discussions between January 1993 and September 1994.
Stakeholders were aware of the types of issues that would be discussed
in the proposed rule, and therefore have had adequate time to prepare
to present comments and data to the Agency on the general issues. As
for the specific requirements proposed in the April 29, 1996 proposal,
120 days provides sufficient time to respond. There is broad agreement
that reform of the RCRA Subtitle C management requirements for
remediation wastes is needed. The Agency wishes to move forward with
this important reform, and believes that the requested 60 day extension
would cause unnecessary delay. Accordingly, the Agency is extending the
comment period 30 days to August 28, 1996 to provide for a 120-day
comment period.
The Agency also received requests to extend the comment period for
60 additional days for the RCRA corrective action Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (``ANPR'') (61 FR 19432) from American Petroleum
Institute and the American Industrial Health Council. As justification
for a time extension, stakeholders noted: (1) The need for adequate
time for public review, and (2) limited expert resources to comment on
both the HWIR-media (61 FR 18780) proposal and the corrective action
ANPR (61 FR 19432) at the same time. The Agency has decided to retain
the current 90 day comment period for the ANPR; comments on the ANPR
are due by July 30, 1996. Although the ANPR requests comment on a range
of corrective action issues, it does not propose any specific changes
to the program, and is primarily soliciting views of interested parties
rather than detailed technical analysis. Therefore, the Agency believes
that a 90 day public comment period is adequate time. The Agency
intends to move expeditiously forward with its plans to identify and
implement improvements to the corrective action program. Any newly
proposed or reproposed corrective action regulations which follow the
ANPR will undergo appropriate public involvement and review as part of
the rulemaking process. In addition, the Agency is providing relief
from commenting on HWIR-media and the corrective action ANPR at the
same time by extending the comment period for the HWIR-media proposal.
One of the requests for an extension asked that the Agency
specifically identify those portions of the 1990 corrective action
proposal (55 FR 30798 (July 27, 1990)) which EPA plans to promulgate as
final. EPA has not determined what, if any, portions of the 1990
proposal are appropriate for finalizing, but rather solicited comment
on this issue. EPA provided opportunity for notice and comment on the
1990 proposal at the time of that proposal. Comments submitted during
the 1990 comment period, as well as comments on this ANPR, will be
considered before the Agency takes final action on any part of the 1990
proposal. In the May 1, 1996 ANPR (61 FR 19432) EPA requests that
commenters identify specific elements of the 1990 proposal which could
be promulgated without additional public review and the advantages and
disadvantages of immediately promulgating such provisions. Please see
the May 1, 1996 ANPR (61 FR 19432, 19456) for additional discussion of
this issue.
Dated: June 20, 1996.
Elliott Laws,
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response.
[FR Doc. 96-16669 Filed 6-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16651 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300-600 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 127 (Monday, July 1, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33874-33876]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16651]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-NM-10-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300-600 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 all Airbus Model A300-600 series
airplanes. This proposal would require inspections to detect cracking
of the upper radius of the forward fitting of frame 47, and repair, if
necessary. This proposal is prompted by results of full-scale fatigue
testing, which revealed cracking in the upper radius of frame 47. The
actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent such
fatigue cracking, which could result in reduced structural integrity of
frame 47 of the fuselage.
DATES: Comments must be received by August 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-NM-10-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 Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France. This information may be examined at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phil Forde, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2146; fax (206) 227-1149.
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-10-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.
[[Page 33875]]
96-NM-10-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
Discussion
The Direction Generale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the
airworthiness authority for France, recently notified the FAA that an
unsafe condition may exist on all Airbus Model A300-600 series
airplanes. The DGAC advises that, during a full-scale fatigue test,
cracks were found on the left and right upper radius of frame 47 on a
Model A300 series airplane that had accumulated 48,000 flights. Similar
cracking also was found on an in-service Model A300 B2 series airplane
that had accumulated 18,000 flights. Fatigue cracking of the upper
radius could result in rupture of the forward fitting of the frame.
Such fatigue cracking, if not detected and corrected in a timely
manner, could result in reduced structural integrity of frame 47 of the
fuselage.
Explanation of Relevant Service Information
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-53-6029, Revision 2, dated
November 7, 1994, which describes procedures for repetitive eddy
current inspections to detect cracking of the upper radius of the left
and right forward fitting of frame 47. For airplanes on which cracking
is found, the service bulletin describes procedures for modification of
the sealing fitting and sealing sham, and repetitive ultrasonic
inspections to detect cracking of the rear of the forward fitting.
Among other things, the modification involves performing PR sealing on
the fitting and on the fasteners inside the center wing box.
The DGAC classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued
French airworthiness directive 93-162-148(B), dated September 15, 1993,
in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in
France.
FAA's Conclusions
This airplane model is manufactured in France 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. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed
of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of
the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD
action is necessary for products of this type design that are
certificated for operation in the United States.
Explanation of Requirements of Proposed Rule
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered
in the United States, the proposed AD would require repetitive eddy
current inspections to detect cracking of the upper radius of the left
and right forward fitting of frame 47, and repair, if necessary. The
inspections would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the
service bulletin described previously. The repair would be required to
be accomplished in accordance with a method approved by the FAA.
Explanation of Differences Between Service Bulletin and Proposed
Rule
Operators should note that, unlike the procedures recommended in
the referenced service bulletin, this proposed rule would not permit
further flight after detection of cracking in the upper radius of the
fitting within certain limits. Instead, this proposed rule would
require, prior to further flight, repair of cracking in accordance with
a method approved by the FAA. The FAA finds that, in light of the
safety implications and consequences associated with such cracking, an
adequate level of safety for the affected fleet requires that cracking
in the upper radius must be repaired prior to further flight.
Additionally, this proposed AD does not require accomplishment of
the modification described in the referenced service bulletin. The
service bulletin specifies that purpose of the modification is to
provide access to the forward fitting of frame 47 to enable operators
to accomplish an ultrasonic inspection to detect longer cracks of the
rear of the fitting. The FAA finds that since accomplishment of this
modification will not prevent fatigue cracking of the upper radius, in
lieu of accomplishing that modification, any cracking detected during
the eddy current inspection must be repaired prior to further flight.
In addition, the service bulletin specifies that inspection
thresholds and intervals may be adjusted based on certain average
flight operations of the airplane. However, the FAA has determined that
such adjustments would not address the unsafe condition in a timely
manner. Therefore, this proposed AD does not permit such adjustments.
In developing the appropriate compliance time for the proposed rule,
the FAA considered not only the manufacturers recommendation, but the
safety implications involved with cracking in the upper radius of the
fitting of frame 47 and the number of landings that had been
accumulated when cracking was detected. In light of these factors, the
FAA finds the compliance times specified in the proposed AD for
initiating the required actions to be warranted, in that they represent
an appropriate interval of time allowable for the affected airplanes to
continue to operate without compromising safety.
Further, the service bulletin specifies that operators need not
count touch-and-go landings in determining the total number of landings
between two consecutive inspections, even if those landings are less
than five percent of the landings between inspection intervals. Since
fatigue cracking that was found in the upper radius of the fitting of
frame 47 is aggravated by landing operations, the FAA finds that all
touch-and-go landings must be counted in determining the total number
of landings between two consecutive inspections.
Cost Impact
The FAA estimates that 35 airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 4 work
hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the
average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the
cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$8,400, or $240 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of
this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in
the future if this AD were not adopted.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if
[[Page 33876]]
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:
Airbus Industrie: Docket 96-NM-10-AD.
Applicability: All Model A300-600 series airplanes, certificated
in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent reduced structural integrity of frame 47 of the
fuselage, accomplish the following:
(a) Prior to the accumulation of 17,300 total landings, or
within one year after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later: Perform an eddy current inspection to detect cracking
of the upper radius of the left and right forward fitting of frame
47, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6029,
Revision 2, dated November 7, 1994.
(1) If no cracking is found during an eddy current inspection:
Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,600
landings.
(2) If any cracking is found during an eddy current inspection:
Prior to further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved
by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA
Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send
it to the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 25, 1996.
S.R. Miller,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-16651 Filed 6-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16647 Securities Credit Transactions
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 127 (Monday, July 1, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 33874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16647]
========================================================================
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. 127 / Monday, July 1, 1996 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 33874]]
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Parts 207, 220, and 221
[Regulations G, T, and U; Docket No. R-0923]
Securities Credit Transactions
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Board is extending the comment period on its proposal to
amend its margin regulations, Regulations G, T, and U, to give the
public additional time to comment on the proposal. The Secretary of the
Board, acting pursuant to delegated authority, has extended the comment
period from July 1, 1996 to August 2, 1996, to give the public
additional time to provide comments.
DATES: Comments should be received on or before August 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to Docket R-0923, and may be mailed to
William Wiles, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20551.
Comments addressed to Mr. Wiles also may be delivered to Room B-2222 of
the Eccles Building between 8:45 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. weekdays, or to the
guard station in the Eccles Building courtyard on 20th Street NW
(between Constitution Avenue and C Street NW) at any time. Comments
received will be available for inspection in Room MP-500 of the Martin
Building between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. weekdays, except as provided
in 12 CFR 261.9 of the Board's Rules Regarding the Availability of
Information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Holz, Senior Attorney or Angela
Desmond, Senior Counsel, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation
(202) 452-2781; Oliver Ireland, Associate General Counsel (202) 452-
3625 or Gregory Baer, Managing Senior Counsel (202) 452-3236, Legal
Division; for the hearing impaired only, Telecommunications Device for
the Deaf (TDD), Dorothea Thompson (202) 452-3544.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 6, 1996, the Board requested comment
on amendments to its margin regulations, Regulations G, T, and U (61 FR
20399).
By order of the Secretary of the Board, acting pursuant to
delegated authority for the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, June 25, 1996.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-16647 Filed 6-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16643 Rulemaking procedures; Public Participation
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 127 (Monday, July 1, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33878-33879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16643]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 1
RIN 2900-AI33
Rulemaking procedures; Public Participation
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In a document recently published in the Federal Register (61
FR 11309), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) amended the
``GENERAL PROVISIONS'' regulations by eliminating a policy statement
concerning prior notice-and-comment for rulemaking. That action, taken
without prior notice-and-comment, concluded that the policy statement
was unnecessary. Judicial review has been sought on the basis that such
action did not comply with notice-and-comment provisions. While we
believe such position is not legally correct, we do not object to
providing interested parties with an opportunity to comment on whether
the policy statement should be eliminated. Accordingly, a companion
document published in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue
of the Federal Register reestablishes the policy statement and this
document proposes to eliminate it, thus affording interested parties
the opportunity to comment thereon. For reasons stated below, it does
not appear that there is a need to retain the policy statement.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 30, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver written comments to: Director, Office
of Regulations Management (02D), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810
Vermont Ave., NW, Room 1154, Washington, DC 20420. Comments should
indicate that they are submitted in response to ``RIN 2900-AI33.'' All
written comments will be available for public inspection at the above
address in the Office of Regulations Management, Room 1158, between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except
holidays).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas O. Gessel, Director, Office of
Regulations Management (02D), Office of General Counsel, Department of
Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202)
273-8605.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document proposes to amend the
``GENERAL PROVISIONS'' regulations in 38 CFR part 1 by removing
Sec. 1.12.
[[Page 33879]]
This section consists of a policy statement concerning prior notice-
and-comment for rulemaking.
The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553 set forth notice-and-comment
requirements for rulemaking and include an exemption from the notice-
and-comment requirements for rulemaking concerning public property,
loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. Regardless of whether the
rulemaking concerns public property, loans, grants, benefits, or
contracts, the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553 also contain exemptions from
the notice-and-comment requirements for interpretative rules; general
statements of policy; rules of organization, procedure, or practice;
and for rules published with an appropriate statement of ``good
cause.'' The regulatory history of Sec. 1.12 indicates that, despite
the statutory exemption for public property, loans, grants, benefits,
or contracts, VA intended to utilize the notice-and-comment provisions
for rulemaking unless it were determined that it was appropriate to use
an applicable exemption other than an exemption based on the mere fact
that the subject matter concerned property, loans, grants, benefits, or
contracts (see 37 FR 3552, Feb. 17, 1972).
Subsequent to the promulgation of Sec. 1.12, statutory provisions
were established that specifically apply the public notice-and-comment
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553 to VA rulemaking concerning loans, grants,
or benefits (see 38 U.S.C. 501(d)). These statutory provisions do not
impose notice-and-comment provisions for rulemaking concerning public
property or contracts.
Also, subsequent to the promulgation of Sec. 1.12, statutory
provisions were established that specifically apply notice-and-comment
provisions to certain rulemaking concerning contracts. In this regard,
41 U.S.C. 418b provides, with certain exceptions, that ``no procurement
policy, regulation, procedure, or form (including amendments or
modifications thereto) relating to the expenditure of appropriated
funds that has (1) a significant effect beyond the internal operating
procedures of the agency issuing the procurement policy, regulation,
procedure or form, or (2) a significant cost or administrative impact
on contractors or offerors, may take effect until 60 days after the
procurement policy, regulation, procedure, or form is published for
public comment in the Federal Register.''
It does not appear that there is a need for VA to self-impose
additional notice-and-comment requirements for rulemaking beyond those
imposed by statute.
A companion document reestablishing Sec. 1.12 is published in the
Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register.
No notice of proposed rulemaking was required in connection with
this rulemaking action. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis
is required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612).
Nevertheless, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs certifies that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The adoption of the proposed rule would not
have a direct effect on small entities.
There is no Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program number.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Archives and records,
Cemeteries, Claims, Courts, Flags, Freedom of information, Government
contracts, Government employees, Government property, Infants and
children, Inventions and patents, Investigations, Parking, Penalties,
Postal Service, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Seals and insignia, Security measures, Wages.
Approved: June 21, 1996.
Jesse Brown,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 38 CFR part 1 is proposed
to be amended as set forth below:
PART 1--GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 1.12 [Removed]
Section 1.12 and the undesignated center heading preceding
Sec. 1.12 are removed.
[FR Doc. 96-16643 Filed 6-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16524 Classified Information; Revision
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 127 (Monday, July 1, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33886-33891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16524]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
49 CFR Parts 1 and 8
[Docket No. OST-96-1427; Notice 96-16]
RIN: 2105-AC51
Classified Information; Revision
AGENCY: Department of Transportation (DOT), Office of the Secretary.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DOT proposes to revise its regulations regarding
classification and declassification of, and access to, classified
information, and to delegate to the Assistant Secretary for
Administration authority to ensure compliance within DOT with the
regulations and the underlying Executive Orders. This action is taken
in response to the President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative and in
order to implement recent Executive Orders.
DATES: Comments are due August 30, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Documentary Services
Division, Attention: Docket Section, Room PL401, Docket No. OST-96-
1427, Department of Transportation, C-55, Washington, DC 20590. Any
person wishing acknowledgment that his/her comments have been received
should include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Comments received
will be available for public inspection and copying in the Documentary
Services Division, Room PL401, Department of Transportation Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert I. Ross, Office of the General
Counsel, C-10, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590,
telephone (202) 366-9156, FAX (202) 366-9170.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1995, the President of the United States
issued two Executive Orders making substantial revisions to the rules
under which agencies of the Executive Branch, such as DOT, manage
information that requires special treatment in the interest of national
security. Briefly stated, Executive Order 12958 of April 17, 1995,
Classified National Security Information, requires that less
information be classified; and Executive Order 12968 of August 2, 1995,
Access to Classified Information, requires agencies to provide
administrative review of decisions to deny access to classified
information. This proposal seeks to implement both Orders. To
[[Page 33887]]
foster uniform administration within DOT, authority to ensure
compliance is being delegated to the Assistant Secretary for
Administration.
Analysis of Regulatory Impacts
This amendment is not a ``significant regulatory action'' within
the meaning of Executive Order 12866. It is also not significant within
the definition in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures, 49 FR 11034
(1979), in part because it does not involve any change in important
Departmental policies. Because the economic impact should be minimal,
further regulatory evaluation is not necessary. Moreover, I certify
that this proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This proposal does not significantly affect the environment, and
therefore an environmental impact statement is not required under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It has also been reviewed
under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, and it has been determined
that it does not have sufficient implications for federalism to warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Finally, the proposal does not contain any collection of
information requirements, requiring review under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 1
Authority delegations (government agencies), Organization and
functions (government agencies), Transportation Department.
49 CFR Part 8
Classified information.
In accordance with the above, DOT proposes to amend 49 CFR, as
follows:
PART 1--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 1 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 USC 322.
2. In Sec. 1.59, a new paragraph (e)(9) would be added to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.59 Delegations to the Assistant Secretary for Administration.
(e) * * *.
(9) Ensure Department-wide compliance with Executive Orders 10450,
12829, 12958, 12968, and related regulations and issuances.
* * * * *
3. Part 8 would be revised to read as follows:
PART 8--CLASSIFIED INFORMATION: CLASSIFICATION/DECLASSIFICATION/
ACCESS
Subpart A--General
Sec.
8.1 Scope.
8.3 Applicability.
8.5 Definitions.
8.7 Spheres of responsibility.
Subpart B--Classification/Declassification of Information
8.9 Information Security Review Committee.
8.11 Authority to classify information.
8.13 Authority to downgrade or declassify.
8.15 Mandatory review for classification.
8.17 Classification challenges.
8.19 Procedures for submitting and processing requests for
classification reviews.
8.21 Burden of proof.
8.23 Classified information transferred to the Department of
Transportation.
Subpart C--Access to Information
8.25 Personnel Security Review Board.
8.27 Public availability of declassified information.
8.29 Access by historical researchers and former Presidential
appointees.
8.31 Industrial security.
Authority: EO 10450, 18 FR 2489, 3 CFR 1949-1953, Com., p. 936;
EO 12829, 58 FR 3479; EO 12458, 60 FR 19825; EO 12968, 60 FR 40245.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 8.1 Scope.
This part sets forth procedures for the classification,
declassification, and availability of information that must be
protected in the interest of national security, in implementation of
Executive Order 12958 of April 17, 1995, ``Classified National Security
Information;'' and for the review of decisions to revoke, or not to
issue, national security information clearances, or to deny access to
classified information, under Executive Order 12968 of August 2, 1995,
``Access to National Security Information''.
Sec. 8.3 Applicability.
This part applies to all elements of the Department of
Transportation.
Sec. 8.5 Definitions.
As used in this part:
Classification means the act or process by which information is
determined to be classified information.
Classification levels means the following three levels at which
information may be classified:
(a) Top Secret. Information that requires the highest degree of
protection, and the unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably
be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national
security that the original classification authority is able to identify
or describe.
(b) Secret. Information that requires a substantial degree of
protection, and the unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably
be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the
original classification authority is able to identify or describe.
(c) Confidential. Information that requires protection and the
unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause
damage to the national security that the original classification
authority is able to identify or describe.
Classified information or classified national security information
means information that has been determined under Executive Order 12958,
or any predecessor or successor order, to require protection against
unauthorized disclosure, and is marked to indicate its classified
status when in documentary form.
Clearance means that an individual is eligible, under the standards
of Executive Orders 10450 and 12968 and appropriate DOT regulations,
for access to classified information.
Damage to the national security means harm to the national defense
or foreign relations of the United States from the unauthorized
disclosure of information, to include the sensitivity, value, and
utility of that information.
Declassification means the authorized change in the status of
information from classified information to unclassified information.
Downgrading means a determination by a declassification authority
that information classified and safeguarded at a specific level shall
be classified and safeguarded at a lower level.
Information means any knowledge that can be communicated, or
documentary material, regardless of its physical form or
characteristics, that is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the
control of the United States Government. Control means the authority of
the agency that originates information, or its successor in function,
to regulate access to the information.
Mandatory declassification review means the review for
declassification of classified information in response to a request for
declassification that qualifies under Section 3.6 of Executive Order
12958.
Original classification means an initial determination that
information requires, in the interest of national security, protection
against unauthorized disclosure.
Original classification authority means an individual authorized in
[[Page 33888]]
writing, either by the President or by agency heads or other officials
designated by the President, to classify information in the first
instance.
Sec. 8.7 Spheres of responsibility.
(a) Pursuant to Section 5.6(c) of Executive Order 12958, and to
Section 6.1 of Executive Order 12968, the Assistant Secretary for
Administration is hereby designated as the senior agency official of
the Department of Transportation with assigned responsibilities to
assure effective compliance with and implementation of Executive Order
12958, Executive Order 12968, Office of Management and Budget
Directives, these regulations, and related issuances.
(b) In the discharge of these responsibilities, the Assistant
Secretary for Administration will be assisted by the Director of
Security, who, in addition to other actions directed by this part, will
evaluate the overall application of and adherence to the security
policies and requirements prescribed herein and who will report his/her
findings and recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for
Administration, heads of Departmental elements, and, as appropriate, to
the Secretary.
(c) Secretarial Officers and heads of Departmental elements will
assure that the provisions herein are effectively administered, that
adequate personnel and funding are provided for this purpose, and that
corrective actions that may be warranted are taken promptly.
Subpart B--Classification/Declassification of Information
Sec. 8.9 Information Security Review Committee.
(a) There is hereby established a Department of Transportation
Information Security Review Committee, which will have authority to:
(1) Act on all suggestions and complaints not otherwise resolved
with respect to the Department's administration of Executive Order
12958 and implementing directives, including those regarding
overclassification, failure to declassify, or delay in declassifying;
(2) Act on appeals of requests for classification reviews, and
appeals of requests for records under 5 U.S.C. 552 (Freedom of
Information Act) when the initial, and proposed final, denials are
based on continued classification of the record; and
(3) Recommend to the Secretary, when necessary, appropriate
administrative action to correct abuse or violation of any provision of
Executive Order 12598 and implementing directives.
(b) The Information Security Review Committee will be composed of
the Assistant Secretary for Administration, who will serve as Chair;
the General Counsel; and the Director of Security. When matters
affecting a particular Departmental agency are at issue, the Associate
Administrator for Administration for that agency, or the Chief of Staff
for the U.S. Coast Guard, as the case may be, will participate as an ad
hoc member, together with the Chief Counsel of that agency. Any regular
member may designate a representative with full power to serve in his/
her place.
(c) In carrying out its responsibilities to review decisions to
revoke or not to issue clearances, or to deny access to classified
information, the Committee will establish whatever procedures it deems
fit.
Sec. 8.11 Authority to classify information.
(a) Executive Order 12958 confers upon the Secretary of
Transportation the authority to originally classify information as
SECRET with further authorization to delegate this authority.
(b) The following delegations of authority to originally classify
information as ``SECRET'', which may not be redelegated, are hereby
made:
(1) Office of the Secretary of Transportation. The Deputy
Secretary; Assistant Secretary for Administration; Director of
Intelligence and Security; Director of Security.
(2) United States Coast Guard. Commandant; Chief, Office of Law
Enforcement and Defense Operations.
(3) Federal Aviation Administration. Administrator; Assistant
Administrator for Civil Aviation Security.
(4) Maritime Administration. Administrator.
(c) Although the delegations of authority set out in paragraph (b)
of this section are expressed in terms of positions, the authority is
personal and is invested only in the individual occupying the position.
The authority may not be exercised ``by direction of'' a designated
official. The formal appointment or assignment of an individual to one
of the identified positions or a designation in writing to act in the
absence of one of these officials, however, conveys the authority to
originally classify information as ``SECRET''.
(d) Previous delegations and redelegations of authority within the
Department of Transportation to originally classify information are
hereby rescinded.
Sec. 8.13 Authority to downgrade or declassify.
Information originally classified by the Department may be
specifically downgraded or declassified by either the official
authorizing the original classification, if that official is still
serving in the same position, the originator's current successor in
function, a supervisory official of either, officials delegated
declassification authority in writing by the Secretary, or by the
Departmental Information Security Review Committee.
Sec. 8.15 Mandatory review for classification.
(a) All information classified by the Department of Transportation
under Executive Order 12958 or predecessor orders shall be subject to a
review for declassification if:
(1) the request for review describes the information with
sufficient specificity to enable its location with a reasonable amount
of effort; and
(2) the information has not been reviewed for declassification
within the prior two years. If the information has been reviewed within
the prior two years, or the information is the subject of pending
litigation, the requestor will be informed of this fact, and of the
Department's decision not to declassify the information and of his/her
right to appeal the Department's decision not to declassify the
information to the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel.
(b) All information reviewed for declassification because of a
mandatory review will be declassified if it does not meet the standards
for classification in Executive Order 12958. The information will then
be released unless withholding is otherwise authorized and warranted
under applicable law.
Sec. 8.17 Classification challenges.
(a) Authorized holders of information classified by the Department
of Transportation who, in good faith, believe that its classification
status is improper are encouraged and expected to challenge the
classification status of the information before the Departmental
Information Security Review Committee.
(1) No individual will be subject to retribution for bringing such
a challenge; and
(2) Each individual whose challenge is denied will be advised that
he/she may appeal to the Interagency Security Classification Appeals
Panel established by Sec. 5.4 of Executive Order 12958.
(b) This classification challenge provision is not intended to
prevent an authorized holder of information classified by the
Department of
[[Page 33889]]
Transportation from informally questioning the classification status of
particular information. Such information inquiries should be encouraged
as means to resolve classification concerns and reduce the
administrative burden of formal challenges.
Sec. 8.19 Procedures for submitting and processing requests for
classification reviews.
(a) The Director of Security is hereby designated as the official
to whom a member of the public or another department or agency should
submit a request for a classification review of classified information
produced by or under the primary cognizance of the Department. Elements
of the Department that receive a request directly will immediately
notify the Director.
(b) If the request for classification review involves material
produced by or under the cognizance of the U.S. Coast Guard or the
Federal Aviation Administration, the Director will forward the request
to the headquarters security staff of the element concerned for action.
If the request involves material produced by other Departmental
elements, the Director will serve as the office acting on the request.
(c) The office acting on the request will:
(1) Immediately acknowledge receipt of the request and provide a
copy of the correspondence to the Director. If a fee for search of
records is involved pursuant to 49 CFR part 7, the requester will be so
notified;
(2) Conduct a security review, which will include consultation with
the office that produced the material and with source authorities when
the classification, or exemption of material from automatic
declassification, was based upon determinations by an original
classifying authority; and
(3) Assure that the requester is notified of the determination
within 30 calendar days or given an explanation as to why further time
is necessary, and provide a copy of the notification to the Director.
(d) If the determination reached is that continued classification
is required, the notification to the requester will include, whenever
possible, a brief statement as to why the requested material cannot be
declassified. The notification will also advise the requester of the
right to appeal the determination to the Departmental Information
Security Review Committee. A requester who wishes to appeal a
classification review decision, or who has not been notified of a
decision after 60 calendar days, may submit an appeal to the
Departmental Information Security Review Committee.
(e) If the determination reached is that continued classification
is not required, the information will be declassified and the material
remarked accordingly. The office acting on the request will then refer
the request to the office originating the material or higher authority
to determine if it is otherwise withholdable from public release under
the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the Department's
implementing regulations (49 CFR part 7).
(1) If the material is available under the Freedom of Information
Act, the requester will be advised that the material has been
declassified and is available. If the request involves the furnishing
of copies and a fee is to be collected, the requester will be so
advised pursuant to 49 CFR part 7, Departmental regulations
implementing the Freedom of Information Act.
(2) If the material is not available under the Freedom of
Information Act, the requester will be advised that the material has
been declassified but that the record is unavailable pursuant to the
Freedom of Information Act, and that the provisions concerning
procedures for reconsidering decisions not to disclose records,
contained in 49 CFR part 7, apply.
(f) Upon receipt of an appeal from a classification review
determination based upon continued classification, the Departmental
Information Security Review Committee will acknowledge receipt
immediately and act on the matter within 30 calendar days. With respect
to information originally classified by or under the primary cognizance
of the Department, the Committee, acting for the Secretary, has
authority to overrule previous determinations in whole or in part when,
in its judgment, continued protection in the interest of national
security is no longer required. When the classification of the material
produced in the Department is based upon a classification determination
made by another department or agency, the Committee will immediately
consult with its counterpart committee for that department or agency.
(1) If it is determined that the material produced in the
Department requires continued classification, the requester will be so
notified and advised of the right to appeal the decision to the
Interagency Classification Review Committee.
(2) If it is determined that the material no longer requires
classification, it will be declassified and remarked. The Committee
will refer the request to the General Counsel, or to the head of the
Departmental agency concerned, as the case may be, to determine if the
material is otherwise withholdable from the public under the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and Departmental regulations, (49 CFR
Part 7), and paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section will be
followed. A copy of the response to the requester will be provided to
the Committee.
(g) Requests for a classification review of material more than 25
years old will be referred directly to the Archivist of the United
States and the requester will be notified of the referral. In this
event, the provisions of Sec. 8.19 apply.
(h) Whenever a request is insufficient in the description of the
record sought, the requester will be asked to limit his request to
records that are reasonably obtainable. If, in spite of these steps,
the requester does not describe the records with sufficient
particularity, or the record requested cannot be obtained with a
reasonable amount of effort, the requester will be notified of the
reasons why the request is denied and of his/her right to appeal the
determination to the Departmental Information Security Review
Committee.
Sec. 8.21 Burden of proof.
For the purpose of determinations to be made under Secs. 8.13,
8.15, and 8.17, the burden of proof is on the originating Departmental
agency to show that continued classification is warranted.
Sec. 8.23 Classified information transferred to the Department of
Transportation.
(a) Classified information officially transferred to the Department
in conjunction with a transfer of function, and not merely for storage
purposes, will be considered to have been originated by the Department.
(b) Classified information in the custody of the Department
originated by a department or agency that has ceased to exist and for
whom there is no successor agency will be deemed to have been
originated by the Department. This information may be declassified or
downgraded by the Department after consultation with any other agency
that has an interest in the subject matter of the information. Such
agency will be allowed 30 calendar days in which to express an
objection, if it so desires, before action is taken. A difference of
opinion that cannot be resolved will be referred to the Departmental
Information Security Review Committee, which will consult with its
[[Page 33890]]
counterpart committee for the other agency.
(c) Classified information transferred to the National Archives and
Records Administration will be declassified or downgraded by the
Archivist in accordance with Executive Order 12958, Departmental
classification guides, and any existing procedural agreement between
the Archivist and the Department. The Department will take all
reasonable steps to declassify information contained in records
determined to have permanent historical value before they are
accessioned in the National Archives.
(d) To the extent practicable, the Department will adopt a system
of records management that will facilitate the public release of
documents at the time such documents are declassified under the
provisions of this part for automatic declassification. To the maximum
extent possible without destroying the integrity of the Department's
files, all such material will be segregated or set aside for public
release upon request. The Department will cooperate with the Archivist
in efforts to establish a Government-wide database of information that
has been declassified.
Subpart C--Access to Information
Sec. 8.25 Personnel Security Review Board.
(a) There is hereby established a Department of Transportation
Personnel Security Review Board, which will, on behalf of the Secretary
of Transportation (except in any case in which the Secretary personally
makes the decision), make the administratively final decision on an
appeal arising in any part of the Department from:
(1) A decision not to grant access to classified information;
(2) A decision to revoke access to classified information; or
(3) A decision under Sec. 8.29 of this part to deny access to
classified information.
(b) The Personnel Security Review Board will be composed of:
(1) two persons appointed by the Assistant Secretary for
Administration: one from the Office of Personnel and Training, and one,
familiar with personnel security adjudication, from the Office of
Security, who will serve as Chair;
(2) one person appointed by the General Counsel, who, in addition
to serving as a member of the Board, will provide to the Board whatever
legal services it may require; and
(3) one person appointed by each of the Commandant of the Coast
Guard and the Federal Aviation Administrator.
(4) Any member may designate a representative, meeting the same
criteria as the member, with full power to serve in his/her place.
(c) In carrying out its responsibilities to review final decisions
to revoke or deny access to classified information, the Board will
establish whatever procedures it deems fit.
Sec. 8.27 Public availability of declassified information.
(a) It is a fundamental policy of the Department to make
information available to the public to the maximum extent permitted by
law. Information that is declassified for any reason loses its status
as material protected in the interest of national security.
Accordingly, declassified information will be handled in every respect
on the same basis as all other unclassified information. Declassified
information is subject to the Departmental public information policies
and procedures, with particular reference to the Freedom of Information
Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and implementing Departmental regulations (49 CFR
part 7).
(b) In furtherance of this policy, all classified material produced
after June 1, 1972 that is of sufficient historical or other value to
warrant preservation as permanent records in accordance with
appropriate records administrative standards, and that becomes
declassified, will be systematically reviewed prior to the end of each
calendar year for the purpose of making the material publicly
available. To the maximum extent possible without destroying the
integrity of the Department's files, all such material will be
segregated or set aside for public release upon request.
Sec. 8.29 Access by historical researchers and former Presidential
appointees.
(a) Historical researchers. (1) Persons outside the executive
branch who are engaged in historical research projects may have access
to classified information provided that:
(i) Access to the information is clearly consistent with the
interests of national security; and
(ii) The person to be granted access is trustworthy.
(2) The provisions of this paragraph apply only to persons who are
conducting historical research as private individuals or under private
sponsorship and do not apply to research conducted under Government
contract or sponsorship. The provisions are applicable only to
situations where the classified information concerned, or any part of
it, was originated by the Department or its contractors, or where the
information, if originated elsewhere, is in the sole custody of the
Department. Any person requesting access to material originated in
another agency or to information under the exclusive jurisdiction of
the National Archives and Records Administration will be referred to
the other agency or to the National Archives and Records
Administration, as appropriate.
(3) When a request for access to classified information for
historical research is received, it will be referred to the appropriate
local security office. That office will obtain from the applicant
completed Standard Form 86, Questionnaire for National Security
Positions, in triplicate, and Standard Form 87, Fingerprint Chart; a
statement in detail to justify access, including identification of the
kind of information desired and the organization or organizations, if
any, sponsoring the research; and a written statement (signed, dated,
and witnessed) with respect to the following:
(i) That the applicant will abide by regulations of the Department:
(A) To safeguard classified information; and
(B) To protect information that has been determined to be
proprietary or privileged and is therefore not eligible for public
dissemination.
(ii) That the applicant understands that any classified information
that the applicant receives affects the security of the United States.
(iii) That the applicant acknowledges an obligation to safeguard
classified information or privileged information of which the applicant
gains possession or knowledge as a result of the applicant's access to
files of the Department.
(iv) That the applicant agrees not to reveal to any person or
agency any classified information or privileged information obtained as
a result of the applicant's access except as specifically authorized in
writing by the Department, and further agrees that the applicant shall
not use the information for purposes other than those set forth in the
applicant's application.
(v) That the applicant agrees to authorize a review of the
applicant's notes and manuscript for the sole purpose of determining
that no classified information or material is contained therein.
(vi) That the applicant understands that failure to abide by
conditions of this statement will constitute sufficient cause for
canceling the applicant's access to classified information and for
denying the applicant any future access, and may subject the applicant
to criminal provisions of Federal law as referred to in this statement.
(vii) That the applicant is aware and fully understands that title
18, United
[[Page 33891]]
States Code, Crimes and Criminal Procedures, and the Internal Security
Act of 1950, as amended, title 50, United States Code, prescribe, under
certain circumstances, criminal penalties for the unauthorized
disclosure of information respecting the national security, and for
loss, destruction, or compromise of such information.
(viii) That this statement is made to the U.S. Government to enable
it to exercise its responsibilities for the protection of information
affecting the national security.
(ix) That the applicant understands that any material false
statement that the applicant makes knowingly and willfully will subject
the applicant to the penalties of 18 U.S.C. 1001.
(4) The security office will process the forms in the same manner
as specified for a preappointment national agency check for a critical-
sensitive position. Upon receipt of the completed national agency
check, the security office, if warranted, may determine that access by
the applicant to the information will be clearly consistent with the
interests of national security and the person to be granted access is
trustworthy. If deemed necessary, before making its determination, the
office may conduct or request further investigation. Before access is
denied in any case, the matter will be referred through channels to the
Director of Security for review and submission to the Personnel
Security Review Board for final review.
(5) If access to TOP SECRET or intelligence or communications
security information is involved a special background investigation is
required. However, this investigation will not be requested until the
matter has been referred through channels to the Director of Security
for determination as to adequacy of the justification and the consent
of other agencies as required.
(6) When it is indicated that an applicant's research may extend to
material originating in the records of another agency, approval must be
obtained from the other agency prior to the grant of access.
(7) Approvals for access will be valid for the duration of the
current research project but no longer than 2 years from the date of
issuance, unless renewed. If a subsequent request for similar access is
made by the individual within 1 year from the date of completion of the
current project, access may again be granted without obtaining a new
National Agency Check. If more than 1 year has elapsed, a new National
Agency Check must be obtained. The local security office will promptly
advise its headquarters security staff of all approvals of access
granted under these provisions.
(8) An applicant may be given access only to that classified
information that is directly pertinent to the applicant's approved
project. The applicant may review files or records containing
classified information only in offices under the control of the
Department. Procedures must be established to identify classified
material to which the applicant is given access. The applicant must be
briefed on local procedures established to prevent unauthorized access
to the classified material while in the applicant's custody, for the
return of the material for secure storage at the end of the daily
working period, and for the control of the applicant's notes until they
have been reviewed. In addition to the security review of the
applicant's manuscript, the manuscript must be reviewed by appropriate
offices to assure that it is technically accurate insofar as material
obtained from the Department is concerned, and is consistent with the
Department's public release policies.
(b) Former Presidential appointees. Persons who previously occupied
policymaking positions to which they were appointed by the President
may be granted access to classified information or material that they
originated, reviewed, signed, or received, while in public office,
provided that:
(1) It is determined that such access is clearly consistent with
the interests of national security; and
(2) The person agrees to safeguard the information, to authorize a
review of the person's notes to assure that classified information is
not contained therein, and that the classified information will not be
further disseminated or published.
Sec. 8.31 Industrial security.
(a) Background. The National Industrial Security Program was
established by Executive Order 12829 of January 6, 1993 for the
protection of information classified pursuant to Executive Order 12356
of April 2, 1982, National Security Information, or its predecessor or
successor orders, and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The
Secretary of Defense serves as the Executive Agent for inspecting and
monitoring contractors, licensees, grantees, and certificate holders
that require or will require access to, or that store or will store,
classified information, and for determining the eligibility for access
to classified information of contractors, licensees, certificate
holders, and grantees, and their respective employees.
(b) Implementing regulations. The Secretary of Transportation has
entered into agreement for the Secretary of Defense to render
industrial security services for the Department of Transportation.
Regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense to fulfill the
provisions of Executive Order 12829 have been extended to protect
release of classified information for which the Secretary of
Transportation is responsible. Specifically, this regulation is DOD
5220.22-M, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual. This
regulation is effective within the Department of Transportation, which
functions as a User Agency as prescribed in the regulation. Appropriate
security staffs, project personnel, and contracting officers assure
that actions required by the regulation are taken.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 31, 1996.
Federico Pena,
Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 96-16524 Filed 6-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16038 Social Welfare Arrangements With States or Other Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 127 (Monday, July 1, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33876-33878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16038]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
25 CFR Part 21
RIN 1076-AD 61
Social Welfare Arrangements With States or Other Agencies
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is proposing to revise the
regulations in this part to improve the clarity of the regulations and
understanding by the public.
Dates: Comments must be received on or before August 30, 1996.
Addresses: Mail comments to Larry Blair, Chief, Division of Social
Services,
[[Page 33877]]
Office of Tribal Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the
Interior, 1849 C St. NW., Mail Stop 4603-MIB, Washington, DC 20240; or,
hand deliver them to Room 4603 at the above address. Comments will be
available for inspection at this address from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday beginning approximately July 15, 1996.
For Further Information Contact: Larry Blair, Chief of the Division of
Social Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs at telephone number (202)
208-2721.
Supplementary Information: The authority to issue rules and regulations
is vested in the Secretary of the Interior by 5 U.S.C. 301 and sections
463 and 465 of the Revised Statutes, 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9.
Publication of the proposed rule by the Department of the Interior
(Department) provides the public an opportunity to participate in the
rulemaking process. Interested persons may submit written comments
regarding the proposed rule to the location identified in the Addresses
section of this document.
Executive Order 12778
The Department has certified to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) that this rule meets the applicable standards provided in
sections 2(a) and 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.
Executive Order 12866
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866 and does not require review by the Office of Management and
Budget.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Executive Order 12630
The Department has determined that this rule does not have
``significant takings'' implications. This rule does not pertain to
``taking'' of private property interests, nor does it impact private
property.
Executive Order 12612
The Department has determined that this rule does not have
significant federalism effects because it pertains solely to Federal-
tribal relations and will not interfere with the roles, rights and
responsibilities of states.
NEPA Statement
The Department has determined that this rule does not constitute a
major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment and that no detailed statement is required pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
This rule imposes no unfunded mandates on any governmental or
private entity and is in compliance with the provisions of the Unfunded
Mandates Act of 1995.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Sections 21.3 and 21.4 contain information collection requirements.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)),
the Department of the Interior has submitted a copy of these sections
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs may enter into agreements with state,
county, or other Federal agencies to provide welfare services for
Indians. The information collected will be used to determine the amount
of funds necessary to provide services for Indians within specified
service areas. It will detail the services to be rendered and a plan
for the expenditure of funds by the contractor. The information
collected will also be used to measure performance of the contractor
and plan future services.
No similar agreement specific information pertaining to welfare
services for Indians is collected by the Bureau of Indian Affairs or
any other Federal agency. Since tribal circumstances vary from one
location to another, no information is available which can be used to
contract this service.
The information to be collected from third parties is the same
information that a state, county, or other Federal agency would
otherwise collect in the provision of welfare services.
The estimate of total burden hours is based upon staff expertise in
the program area responsible for the management of welfare services
budgets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Burden Annual
CFR section Number of Frequency annual hours per burden Cost to
respondents of response responses response hours respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21.3.............................. 50 1 1 16 16 $400
21.4.............................. 50 5 1 32 32 800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
information collection requirement should direct them to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 10202, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Attention: Desk Officer for the
U.S. Department of the Interior.
The Department considers comments by the public on this proposed
collection of information in:
Evaluating whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility;
Evaluating the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other collection techniques or other forms
of information technology.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection 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 the 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 Bureau of Indian
Affairs on the proposed regulations.
Drafting Information: The primary author of this document was
Larry Blair, Division of Social Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Department of the Interior.
[[Page 33878]]
List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 21
Indians, Indians--welfare contracts.
For the reasons given in the preamble, part 21 of title 25, chapter
I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be revised as set
forth below.
PART 21--SOCIAL WELFARE ARRANGEMENTS WITH STATES OR OTHER AGENCIES
Sec.
21.1 Who may negotiate agreements with States, Counties, and other
Federal agencies?
21.2 Who may sign agreements for the relief of distress and social
welfare of Indians?
21.3 What must the State, County, or other Federal welfare agency
provide?
21.4 What standards must welfare service providers meet?
21.5 What will the Bureau provide?
21.6 What information is collected?
21.7 Definitions.
Authority: 25 U.S.C. 454.
Sec. 21.1 Who may negotiate agreements with States, Counties, and
other Federal agencies?
The Secretary may negotiate with State, county, or other Federal
welfare agencies to provide welfare services for Indians within a
particular State and within the exterior boundaries of Indian
reservations or on trust or restricted lands that are under the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Sec. 21.2 Who may sign agreements for the relief of distress and
social welfare of Indians?
The proper officer of the State, county, or other Federal welfare
agency must sign agreements to provide welfare services. Evidence of
the officer's authority must accompany the agreement. Agreements to
provide welfare services are not effective until the Secretary approves
and signs them.
Sec. 21.3 What must the State, County, or other Federal welfare agency
provide?
(a) Plan of operation. A plan of operation describing the services
and assistance to be rendered and a budget showing the plan of
expenditures of funds must be submitted with the agreement. No change
in the plan of operation may be made without the Secretary's prior
approval.
(b) Financial statements. Thirty days after the close of each
fiscal year, a detailed financial statement showing all expenditures
must be submitted to the Secretary. Any deviations from the approved
plan of operation must be explained and the records of the contractor
must remain available for inspection by representatives of the Bureau
of Indian Affairs.
Sec. 21.4 What standards must welfare service providers meet?
(a) Service. The standards of aid, care, and service for Indians
can be no less than the standards for other clients requiring similar
aid, care, and services.
(b) Personnel. Unless the Secretary has agreed otherwise, the
personnel employed for provision of public welfare services to Indians
are subject to the contractor's merit system and the approval of the
Secretary and local welfare authorities.
Sec. 21.5 What will the Bureau of Indian Affairs provide?
(a) Cooperative services. The Bureau will maintain cooperative
services at the local level.
(b) Government property and facilities. The agreement must specify
the terms under which the contractor may use Federal property,
facilities and equipment. Agreements that allow use of Federal
automobiles must require the contractor be responsible for damage or
injury to property or persons and to return the equipment in good
condition. The contractor must carry sufficient insurance and expressly
relieve the Federal Government of any and all liability for any
personal injury or property damages.
Sec. 21.6 What information is collected?
The information collection requirements contained in Sec. 21.3 will
be approved by the Office of Management and Budget as required by 44
U.S.C. 1320 et seq. The information collected in the plan of operation
will be used to determine how contract funds are utilized and to
measure performance of the contractor and plan for future agreements .
The information collected in the financial statement will be used to
determine the adequacy of services and utilization of the budget
provided to the contractor. A response is required to obtain a benefit.
Sec. 21.7 Definitions.
Must means a mandatory or imperative act or requirement.
Secretary means the Secretary of the Interior.
Dated: June 6, 1996.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-16038 Filed 6-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.