issue-1996-04-26•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-26
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-26
issue-1996-04-26Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-26Proposed 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. 96-10385 Quizalofop Ethyl; Proposed Tolerance for Residues on Pineapple
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18536-18538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10385]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 5E4590/P652; FRL-5363-5]
RIN 2070-AB18
Quizalofop Ethyl; Proposed Tolerance for Residues on Pineapple
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to establish a tolerance for the residues of the
herbicide quizalofop-p ethyl ester and its acid metabolite quizalofop-p
and the S enantiomers of both the ester and the acid, all expressed as
quizalofop-p-ethyl ester, in or on the raw agricultural commodity
pineapple. The proposed regulation to establish a maximum permissible
level for residues of the herbicide was requested in a petition
submitted by the Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4).
DATES: Comments, identified by the docket number [PP 5E4590/P652], must
be received on or before May 28, 1996.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Rm. 1132 CM #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. Comments and data
may also be submitted to OPP by sending electronic mail (e-mail) to:
[email protected].
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data
will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII
file format. All comments and data in electronic form must be
identified by the docket number [PP 5E4590/P652]. Electronic comments
on this proposed rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository
Libraries. Additional information on electronic submissions can be
found in the ``SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION'' section of this document.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI). CBI should not be
submitted through e-mail. Information marked as CBI will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2. A copy of the comment that does not contain CBI must be submitted
for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. All written
comments will be available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the
Virginia address given above, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Hoyt L. Jamerson,
Registration Division (7505W), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St. SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Office location and telephone number: Sixth Floor, Crystal Station #1,
2800 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 308-8783, e-
mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Interregional Research Project No. 4
(IR-4), New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, P.O. Box 231,
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, has submitted pesticide
petition (PP) 5E4590 to EPA on behalf of the Agricultural Experiment
Station of Hawaii. This petition requests that the Administrator,
pursuant to section 408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e), amend 40 CFR 180.441 by establishing a
tolerance for combined residues of the herbicide quizalofop-p ethyl
ester [ethyl (R)-(2-[4-((6-chloroquinoxalin-2-yl)oxy)phenoxyl])-
propanoate], and its acid metabolite quizalofop-p [R-(2-[4-((6-
chloroquinoxalin-2yl)oxy)phenoxy]) propanoic acid], and the S
enantiomers of both the ester and the acid, all expressed as
quizalofop-p-ethyl ester, in or on the raw agricultural commodity
pineapple at 0.1 part per million (ppm). IR-4 proposed that use of
quizalofop ethyl on pineapple be limited to Hawaii based on the
geographical representation of the residue data submitted. Additional
residue data will be required to expand the area of usage. Persons
seeking geographically broader registration should contact the Agency's
Registration Division at the address provided above.
The scientific data submitted in the petition and other relevant
material have been evaluated. The toxicological data considered in
support of the proposed tolerance include:
1. Several acute toxicology studies placing technical-grade
quizalofop ethyl in Toxicity Category III.
2. An 18-month carcinogenicity study with CD-1 mice fed diets
containing 0, 2, 10, 80 and 320 ppm (equivalent to 0, 0.2, 1.5, 12, and
48 mg/kg/day) with no carcinogenic effects observed under the
conditions of the study at levels up to and including 80 ppm. There was
an elevated incidence of hepatocellular adenomas and carcinomas
combined in CD-1 male mice at the 320 ppm dose level, which exceeded
the maximum tolerated dose (MTD).
3. A 2-year chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in rats fed
diets containing 0, 25, 100 and 400 ppm (equivalent to 0, 0.9, 3.7, and
15.5 mg/kg/day for males and 0, 1.1, 4.6, and 18.6 mg/kg/day for
females) with no carcinogenic effects observed under the conditions of
the study. The no-observed-effect-level (NOEL) for systemic toxicity is
established at 25 ppm (0.9 mg/kg/day) based on red blood cell
destruction in males, and slight/minimal centrilobular enlargement of
the liver in females at the 100 ppm dose level.
4. A 1-year feeding study in dogs fed diets containing 0, 0.625,
2.5, and 10 mg/kg/day with a NOEL of 10 mg/kg/day, the highest dose
tested (HDT).
5. A developmental toxicity study in rats fed dosage levels of 0,
30, 100, and 300 mg/kg/day, with no developmental effects observed
under the conditions of the study. The NOEL for maternal toxicity is
established at 30 mg/kg/day.
6. A developmental toxicity study in rabbits fed dosage levels of
0, 7, 20, and 60 mg/kg/day with no developmental effects observed under
the conditions of the study. The NOEL for maternal toxicity is
established at 20 mg/kg/day based on decreases in food consumption and
body weight gain at 60 mg/kg/day (HDT).
7. A two-generation reproduction study in rats fed diets containing
0, 25, 100 and 400 ppm (equivalent to 0, 1.25, 5, and 20 mg/kg/day with
a NOEL for developmental toxicity at 25 ppm based on an increase in
liver weight and increase in the incidence of eosinophillic changes in
the liver at 100 ppm. The NOEL for parental toxicity is established at
100 ppm based on
[[Page 18537]]
decreased body weight and premating weight gain in males at the 400 ppm
dose level.
8. Mutagenicity data included gene mutation assays with E. coli and
S. typhimurium (negative); DNA damage assays with B. subtilis
(negative); and a chromosomal aberration test in Chinese hamster cells
(negative). OPP's Health Effects Division, Carcinogenicity Peer Review
Committee (CPRC) has evaluated the rat and mouse cancer studies for
quizalofop ethyl along with other relevant short-term toxicity studies,
mutagenicity studies, and structure-activity relationships. The CPRC
has classified quizalofop ethyl as a Group D carcinogen (not
classifiable as to human cancer potential). The Group D classification
is based on an approximate doubling in the incidence of male mice liver
tumors between controls and the high dose. This finding was not
considered strong enough to warrant the classification of a Category C
(possible human carcinogen); the increase was of marginal statistical
significance, occurred at a high dose which exceeded the predicted MTD,
and occurred in a study in which the concurrent control for liver
tumors was somewhat low as compared to the historical controls, while
the high dose control group was at the upper end of previous historical
control groups. No new cancer studies are required for quizalofop ethyl
at this time.
The Reference Dose (RfD) for quizalofop ethyl is calculated at
0.009 mg/kg of body weight/day. The RfD is based on the NOEL of 0.9 mg/
kg/day from the 2-year rat feeding study, and a uncertainty factor of
100. The theoretical maximum residue contribution (TMRC) from existing
tolerances and the proposed tolerance for pineapple utilizes 2.5
percent of the RfD for the overall U.S. population and 10.6 percent of
the RfD for non-nursing infants (the population most highly exposed).
EPA generally has no concern for dietary exposures below 100 percent of
the RfD.
The nature of the residues in livestock is adequately understood. A
bovine feeding study using quizalofop ethyl ester shows that finite
residues will occur from the feeding of treated commodities or their
processed feed items. The established tolerances in milk, and in fat,
meat, and meat byproducts of cattle, goats, and hogs, horses and sheep
are adequate to cover secondary residues resulting from this use on
pineapple. Food and feed tolerances are not required in association
with this action. EPA concludes that the results of a pineapple
processing study show that residues of quizalofop-p ethyl ester do not
concentrate in the processed commodities juice or wet pulp (pineapple
process residue) .
The nature of the residue in pineapple is adequately understood for
the purposes of this tolerance. An adequate analytical method (HPLC-UV)
is available for enforcement purposes. Prior to its publication in the
Pesticide Analytical Manual, Volume II (PAM II), the enforcement method
is being made available in the interim to anyone who is interested in
pesticide residue enforcement from: By mail, Calvin Furlow, Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone
number: Crystal Mall #2, Rm 1128, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington,
VA 22202, telephone: 703-305-5805.
There are presently no actions pending against the continued
registration of this chemical.
Based on the information and data considered, the Agency has
determined that the tolerance established by amending 40 CFR part 180
would protect the public health. Therefore, it is proposed that the
tolerance be established as set forth below.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, which contains any of the
ingredients listed herein, may request within 30 days after publication
of this notice in the Federal Register that this rulemaking proposal be
referred to an Advisory Committee in accordance with section 408(e) of
the FFDCA.
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [PP 5E4590/P652] (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does
not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
opp-D[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the Virginia address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the
beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order (i.e.,
Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines ``significant'' as
those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially
affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal
governments or communities (also known as ``economically
significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement, grants, user
fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the
principles set forth in this Executive Order.
This action does not impose any enforceable duty, or contain any
``unfunded mandates'' as described in Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), or require prior consultation as
specified by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993),
entitled Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, or special
consideration as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994).
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance
[[Page 18538]]
requirements do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. A certification statement to this effect was
published in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 16, 1996.
Peter Caulkins,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be amended as
follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. In Sec. 180.441, by adding a new paragraph (d), to read as
follows:
Sec. 180.441 Quizalofop ethyl; tolerances for residues.
* * * * *
(d) Tolerances with regional registration, as defined in
Sec. 180.1(n), are established for the combined residues of the
herbicide quizalofop-p ethyl ester [ethyl (R)-(2-[4-((6-
chloroquinoxalin-2-yl)oxy)phenoxy)-propanoate], and its acid metabolite
quizalofop-p [R-(2-(4((6-chloroquinoxalin-2-yl)oxy)phenoxy])propanoic
acid], and the S enantiomers of both the ester and the acid, all
expressed as quizalofop-p-ethyl ester, in or on the following raw
agricultural commodities:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Pineapple.................................................. 0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-10385 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10374 Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10374]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
44 CFR Part 67
[Docket No. FEMA-7164]
Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document corrects a Notice of Proposed Modified
Determinations of base (1% annual chance) flood elevations previously
published at 61 FR 6601 on February 21, 1996. This correction document
provides a more accurate representation of the Flood Insurance Study
and Flood Insurance Rate Map for the Town of Owego, Tioga County, New
York.
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
gives notice of the correction to the Notice of Proposed Modified
Determinations of base (1% annual chance) flood elevations for selected
locations in the Town of Owego, previously published at 61 FR 6601 on
February 21, 1996, in accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-234), 87 Stat. 980, which added
Section 1363 to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Title XIII of
the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-448)), 42
U.S.C. 4001-4128, and 44 CFR Part 67.
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67
Flood Insurance, Floodplains.
On page 6605, in the February 21, 1996 issue of Federal Register,
in the fourth, fifth, and sixth column, the first entry under ``Owego
(Town), Tioga County'', is corrected to read as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#Depth in feet above
ground. *Elevation in
State City/town/county Source of flooding Location feet (NGVD)
-------------------------
Existing Modified
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York.......................... Owego (Town) Tioga Susquehanna River... Approximately 1.4 miles downstream of *823 *822
County. Apalachin Creek.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, ``Flood
Insurance.'')
Dated: April 17, 1996.
Richard W. Krimm,
Acting Associate Director for Mitigation.
[FR Doc. 96-10374 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-04-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10344 Wireless Services; National Communications Services System Petition
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18538-18539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10344]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[WT Docket No. 96-86; DA 96-604]
Wireless Services; National Communications Services System
Petition
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission seeks comment on a petition for rulemaking
filed by the National Communications System requesting that the
Commission adopt rules to provide ``priority access'' to cellular
spectrum for National Security/Emergency Preparedness responsiveness.
The action is taken to establish a record upon which to base a decision
on this issue.
DATES: Comments are due on or before June 3, 1996, and reply comments
are due on or before July 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNamara, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Private Wireless Division, (202) 418-0680.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Petition for Rulemaking Filed; Commission Seeks Comment on Petition for
Rulemaking Filed by National Communications System
Comments Due: June 3, 1996; Replies Due: July 2, 1996
On October 19, 1995, the National Communications System (``NCS''),
through the Secretary of Defense as an Executive Agent of the NCS,
filed a Petition for Rulemaking requesting the Commission to adopt
rules to provide ``priority access'' to cellular spectrum for National
Security/Emergency Preparedness (NS/EP) responsiveness. Specifically,
NCS requests that the Commission establish the Cellular Priority Access
Service (CPAS).
[[Page 18539]]
Summary of NCS Petition
The NCS contends in its petition for rulemaking that cellular usage
by the general public in emergency situations leads to congestion in
the cellular network, causing usage by those with NS/EP
responsibilities to be severely curtailed or made impossible. Without
``priority access'' to cellular spectrum, the NCS argues, rescue
workers are impaired by recurring surges in cellular usage associated
with emergency situations. The NCS cites the bombing of a Federal
office building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, as a recent example. The
NCS argues that ``priority access'' to cellular spectrum is essential
in conducting response and recovery efforts. The NCS also maintains
that action at the national level is necessary to ensure there is one
uniform, nationwide cellular priority access scheme.
The term ``priority access,'' as used by the NCS, means that in
emergencies, when cellular spectrum is congested, authorized priority
users would gain access to the cellular radio spectrum before cellular
telephone users not engaged in NS/EP functions. Approval of the
proposed rules would (1) authorize cellular service providers to
provide priority access; (2) ensure that such service providers, when
doing so, are not in violation of Communications Act provisions barring
unlawful discrimination or undue preference; and (3) override any
existing contractual provisions inconsistent with the rules adopted.
The NCS requests that the Commission establish the Cellular
Priority Access Service (CPAS) by amending Part 64 of the Commission's
Rules. Under the proposed CPAS rules, authorized NS/EP users would be
permitted to obtain access to cellular radio channels ahead of non-NS/
EP users when cellular network congestion is blocking NS/EP call
attempts. In order to obtain priority access, the authorized user would
dial a feature code such as ``*XX.'' The service would require no
special activation; CPAS calls would not preempt calls in progress.
Public Safety Rulemaking
In a rulemaking proceeding recently initiated by the Commission,
comment has been sought regarding present deficiencies in public safety
wireless communications, and spectrum needs for public safety purposes.
See The Development of Operational, Technical, and Spectrum
Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Agency
Communication Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96-86,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 96-115, released April 10, 1996. The
Commission stated that the goal of the proceeding is:
To develop the data necessary to evaluate the spectrum needs of
public safety agencies, to solicit comment on how best to meet these
needs, and to facilitate a transition to a communications
environment in which public safety agencies have access to higher
quality transmission, emerging technologies, and broader services,
including the ability to communicate readily with one another
(interoperability).
Id. at para. 3.
In addition to commenting on the merits of the NCS petition,
interested parties are asked to address whether and to what extent the
issues raised in the NCS petition are related to the pending public
safety rulemaking proceeding, WT Docket No. 96-86. Interested parties
may file comments no later than June 3, 1996. Reply comments must be
filed by July 2, 1996. All comments should be filed with the Office of
the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, NW.,
Room 222, Washington, DC 20554, referencing WT Docket No. 96-86 and the
petition for rulemaking filed by the NCS. The full text of the
petition, the comments, and reply comments are available for inspection
and duplication during regular business hours in the FCC Reference
Center, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, NW., Room
239, Washington, DC 20554. Copies may also be obtained from
International Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS), 2100 M Street, NW.,
Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Civil defense.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-10344 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10308 Airworthiness Directives; Fairchild Aircraft SA26, SA226, and SA227 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18524-18528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10308]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 94-CE-22-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Fairchild Aircraft SA26, SA226, and
SA227 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); Reopening of
the comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to revise an earlier proposed
airworthiness directive (AD), which would have superseded AD 93-19-06.
That AD currently requires repetitively inspecting acrylic cabin and
cockpit side windows for cracks on certain Fairchild Aircraft SA26,
SA226, and SA227 series airplanes, and, if cracks are found that exceed
certain limitations, replacing that window. The previous document
included the following: the proposed requirement of modifying certain
cockpit side windows; more fully-defined crack limitations; and more
clear repetitive inspection intervals for the affected airplanes over
those included in AD 93-19-06. Comments received regarding the NPRM
have prompted the Federal Aviation Administration to change the
proposal and allow the public a further opportunity to participate in
the rulemaking process. The actions specified by the proposed AD are
intended to prevent acrylic cabin or cockpit side window failures,
which, if not detected and corrected, could result in airframe damage
and decompression injuries.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 24, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 94-CE-22-AD, Room 1558, 601 E.
12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments may be inspected at
this location between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
holidays excepted.
Service information that applies to the proposed AD may be obtained
from Fairchild Aircraft, P.O. Box 790490, San Antonio, Texas 78279-
0490; telephone (210) 824-9421. This information also may be examined
at the Rules Docket at the address above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Hung Viet Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Airplane Certification
Office, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0150; telephone
(817) 222-5155; facsimile (817) 222-5960.
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 should 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 that summarizes 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 No. 94-CE-22-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of Supplemental NPRM
Any person may obtain a copy of this supplemental NPRM by
submitting a request to the FAA, Central Region, Office of the
Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 94-CE-22-AD, Room
1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
Discussion
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to certain Fairchild
Aircraft SA26, SA226, and SA227 series airplanes was published in the
Federal Register on February 21, 1995 (60 FR 9649). The action proposed
to supersede AD 93-19-06 with a new AD that would maintain the
requirement of repetitively inspecting acrylic cabin and cockpit side
windows for cracks, and replacing any window where cracks are found
that exceed certain limitations. That NPRM proposed to require
modifying windows that do not have inner window panes installed.
Accomplishment of the modification proposed in the NPRM would be in
accordance with the following service bulletins (SB), as applicable:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page No. Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fairchild SB 26-56-10-045, which incorporates the following pages and revision levels:
3, 4, 5, and 9......................................... Revised: December 1, 1994.
[[Page 18525]]
1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and 10 through 14....................... Issued: August 11, 1994.
Fairchild SB 226-56-005, which incorporates the following pages and revision levels:
3 through 7, and 9..................................... Revised: December 1, 1994.
1, 2, and 8............................................ Revised: August 11, 1994.
10 through 16.......................................... Issued: July 31, 1991.
and Fairchild SB 227-56-005, which incorporates the following pages and revision levels:
3 through 7, and 9..................................... Revised: December 1, 1994.
1, 2, and 8............................................ Revised: August 11, 1994.
10 through 16.......................................... Issued: July 31, 1991.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accomplishment of the repetitive inspections proposed in the NPRM
would be in accordance with the following SB's, as applicable:
Fairchild SB 26-56-20-042, Issued: November 28, 1988; Revised: February
7, 1991.
Fairchild SB 226-56-001, Issued: February 2, 1983; Revised: November
26, 1991.
Fairchild SB 227-56-001, Issued: February 2, 1983; Revised: November
26, 1991.
Fairchild SB 226-56-002, Issued: March 3, 1983; Revised: May 29, 1992.
Fairchild SB 227-56-002, Issued: January 5, 1984; Revised: May 29,
1992, and April 1, 1993.
Fairchild SB 226-56-003, Issued: September 13, 1984; Revised: November
2, 1989.
Fairchild SB 227-56-003, Issued: September 13, 1984; Revised: November
2, 1989.
Fairchild SB 26-56-10-038, Issued: October 8, 1984; Revised: February
7, 1991.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. After reviewing all the comments
received on the NPRM, the FAA is revising the proposal to eliminate the
proposed dual-pane cockpit side window modification, and is proposing
repetitive single-pane cockpit side window replacements (every 5,000
hours time-in-service). The repetitive inspections would remain as
originally proposed. Due consideration has been given to the comments
that follow.
Fifteen comments were received in reference to the dual-pane
cockpit side window modification. These comments present the view that
the compliance times for the modification are unrealistic, that there
is no justification for the FAA to mandate the dual-pane modification,
and that a new improved cockpit side window defogging system should be
developed instead of the modification. Since the FAA has revised the
NPRM to include repetitive single-pane cockpit side window replacements
instead of the dual-pane cockpit side window modification, these
comments no longer apply to the rule as now proposed.
Seven commenters state that the FAA miscalculated the economic
impact of the AD upon the operators, specifically that the 14 hours
proposed to accomplish the modification is closer to 50 workhours for
each side or 100 workhours per airplane. The FAA concurs that it
miscalculated the economic impact and agrees that the proposed
modification would take approximately 100 workhours per airplane (50
workhours each side). However, since the proposal is being revised to
incorporate a life limit on the single-pane windows and since mandatory
dual-pane modification is no longer proposed, the economic portion to
the preamble of this proposal has been adjusted to reflect the single-
pane installation costs instead of the double pane modification costs.
After examining the circumstances and reviewing all available
information related to the subject described above including the
comments received, the FAA has determined that the NPRM should be
revised and that AD action should still be taken to prevent acrylic
cabin or cockpit side window failures, which, if not detected and
corrected, could result in airframe damage and decompression injuries.
Since this revision of the NPRM to add a life limit for the single-
pane cockpit side windows proposes actions that go beyond the scope of
what was already proposed, the FAA is reopening the comment period to
allow the public additional time to comment on this proposed action.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop in other Fairchild Aircraft SA26, SA226, and SA227
series airplanes of the same type design, the proposed AD would
supersede AD 93-19-06 with a new AD that would maintain the requirement
of repetitively inspecting the cabin and cockpit side windows, and
would add a life limit for the single-pane cockpit side windows.
Accomplishment of the single-pane window installation would be in
accordance with the applicable maintenance manual. The proposed
inspections would continue to be accomplished in accordance with the
service bulletins previously referenced.
The compliance time for the proposed AD is presented in both hours
time-in-service (TIS) and calendar time. The referenced acrylic cabin
and cockpit side windows are affected whether the airplane is in flight
or on the ground. In addition, the utilization rates of the affected
airplanes vary among operators. For example, operators in unscheduled
service utilize their airplanes an average of approximately 200 to 300
hours TIS annually, while those in commuter service (scheduled) utilize
their airplanes an average of approximately 2,000 hours TIS annually.
Based on this wide utilization rate variance and the fact that these
windows are affected when the airplane is in flight and on the ground,
the FAA has determined that the compliance time for the proposed rule
should be in hours TIS and calendar time.
The FAA estimates that 633 airplanes in the U.S. registry would be
affected by the proposed AD, that it would take approximately 28
workhours per airplane (14 workhours per window) to accomplish the
proposed life limit installation and that the average labor rate is
approximately $60 an hour. Parts cost approximately $2,200 per airplane
($1,100 per window). Based on these figures, the total cost impact of
the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $2,456,040. AD 93-
19-06 currently requires the same inspections as the proposed AD for
all of the affected airplanes. Therefore, the cost impact of the
proposed inspections (3 workhours x $60 x 633 airplanes = $113,940)
for operators of all affected airplanes is the same as AD 93-19-06. The
figure does not take into account the cost of repetitive inspections.
The FAA has no way of determining how many repetitive inspections each
owner/operator may incur over the life of the airplane.
[[Page 18526]]
In addition, Fairchild Aircraft has informed the FAA that
approximately 250 of the 633 affected airplanes are equipped with
cockpit side windows with inner window panes, and therefore are not
subject to the single-pane window replacements (dual-pane windows would
still be subject to repetitive inspections). With this in mind, the
proposed cost impact upon U.S. operators would be reduced approximately
$970,000 from $2,456,040 to $1,486,040.
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 action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated,
will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation
prepared for this action has been placed 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 removing Airworthiness Directive
(AD) 93-19-06, Amendment 39-8705 (58 FR 51771, October 5, 1993), and by
adding a new AD to read as follows:
Fairchild Aircraft: Docket No. 94-CE-22-AD. Supersedes AD 93-19-06,
Amendment 39-8705.
Applicability: Models SA26-T, SA26-AT, SA226-T, SA226-T(B),
SA226-AT, SA226-TC, SA227-AT, SA227-AC, SA227-BC, and SA227-TT
airplanes (all serial numbers for all models), 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 (f) 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.
Note 2: The applicability of this AD takes precedence over that
specified in the service information.
Compliance: Required as indicated in the body of the AD, unless
already accomplished.
To prevent acrylic cabin or cockpit side window failures, which,
if not detected and corrected, could result in airframe damage and
decompression injuries, accomplish the following:
Note 3: The paragraph structure of this AD is as follows:
Level 1: (a), (b), (c), etc.
Level 2: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Level 3: (i), (ii), (iii), etc.
Level 4: (A), (B), (C), etc.
Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4 structures are designations of the
Level 1 paragraph they immediately follow.
(a) Upon the accumulation of 5,000 hours time-in-service (TIS)
or within the next 1,000 hours TIS after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later, and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 5,000 hours TIS, replace each single-pane cockpit side window
with a new window of like design in accordance with the applicable
maintenance manual.
(1) Accomplish the inspection specified in paragraph (b) of this
AD between 10 to 20 hours TIS after replacing each window to ensure
that no damage has occurred after installation; and
(2) If cracks are found, utilize the chart in paragraph (b) of
this AD to determine the applicable action necessary.
(b) Visually inspect all acrylic single-pane cockpit side
windows for cracks in accordance with the service information
presented in paragraph (d)(2) of this AD, as applicable. Accomplish
the initial inspection, and applicable reinspection or replacement
as specified in the following chart:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Condition Initial action Repetitive action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon the effectiveness of this AD.. Inspect at 150 hours TIS Reinspect at intervals not to exceed 1,000
after the effective date hours TIS or 12 calender months, whichever
of the AD. occurs first, provided no cracks are found.
Use applicable condition column entry to
determine compliance times if cracks are
found.
If cracks are found where the sum Accomplish one of the Accomplish the corresponding repetitive
total of all cracks is less than following:. action:
4.3 inches in combined length, but
where a crack meets or exceeds .30
inches as specified in the Crack
Limitations section of the service
information referenced in
paragraph (d)(2) of this AD.
1. Prior to further flight, 1. Reinspect initially between 10 and 20 hours
replace the window with a TIS after replacing the window to ensure that
new window of like design no damage has occurred after installation,
in accordance with the and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
applicable maintenance 1,000 hours TIS or 12 calendar months,
manual or. whichever occurs first, provided no cracks
are found. Use applicable condition column
entry to determine compliance times if cracks
are found or
[[Page 18527]]
2. Prior to further flight, 2. Repeat the inspection specified in
fabricate a placard with paragraph (b) of this AD at intervals not to
the following words in exceed 25 hours TIS or 30 calendar days, and
letters at least 0.10-inch whichever occurs first, provided the sum
in height and install this total of all cracks does the not exceed 4.3
placard within the pilot's inches in combined length. Replace the window
clear view close to the and continue the actions necessary under the
pressurization controls: ``With cracks found where the sum total of
``AIRPLANE MUST BE all cracks meets or exceeds 4.3 inches in
OPERATED UNPRESSURIZED'', combined length'' condition column.
and prior to further
flight, insert a copy of
this AD into Limitations
Section of the FAA-
approved Airplane Flight
Manual (AFM).
If cracks are ound where the sum Prior to further flight, Reinspect initially between 10 and 20 hours
total of all cracks meets or replace the window with a TIS after replacing the window to ensure that
exceeds 4.3 inches in combined new window of like design no damage has occurred after installation,
length. in accordance with and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
applicable maintenance 1,000 hours TIS or 12 calendar months,
manual. whichever occurs first, provided no cracks
are found. Use applicable condition column
entry to determine compliance times if cracks
are found.
With cracks found that are less Reinspect within 25 hours Continue this reinspection at intervals not to
than .30 inches (as specified in TIS or 30 calendar days, exceed 25 hours TIS or 30 calendar days,
the applicable service information whichever occurs first. whichever occurs first, provided no crack is
referenced in paragraph (d)(2) of found that is .30 inches or greater or the
this AD) provided the sum total of combined length of all cracks exceeds 4.3
all cracks does not exceed 4.3 inches in combined length. Use applicable
inches in combined length. condition column entry to determine
compliance times if any of these crack limits
are met.
With no cracks found after one of Reinspect within 1,000 Reinspect at intervals not to exceed 1,000
the inspections required by this hours TIS and 12 calendar hours TIS or 12 calendar months, whichever
AD. months after the last occurs first, provided no cracks are found.
inspection, whichever Use applicable condition column entry to
occurs first. determine compliance times if cracks are
found.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Visually inspect all acrylic cabin and dual-pane cockpit
side windows for cracks in accordance with the service information
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this AD. Accomplish the
initial inspection and applicable reinspection or replacement as
specified in the following chart:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Condition Initial action Repetitive action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon the effectiveness of this AD.. Inspect at 150 hours TIS Reinspect at intervals not to exceed 1,000
after the effective date hours TIS or 12 calender months, whichever
of the AD, unless already occurs first, provided no cracks are found.
accomplished within the Use applicable condition column entry to
last 1,000 hours TIS or 12 determine compliance times if cracks are
calendar months, which found.
would put airplane in
compliance with superseded
AD 93-19-06. Use the
results of the previous
inspection under AD 93-19-
06 to determine repetitive
interval.
For airplanes taking ``unless already
accomplished'' credit for the initial
inspection, use the results of the previous
inspection under AD 93-19-06 to determine the
repetitive action.
If cracks are found where the sum Accomplish one of the Accomplish the corresponding repetitive
total of all cracks is less than following:. action:
4.3 inches in combined length, but
where a crack meets or exceeds .30
inches as specified in the Crack
Limitations section of the service
information referenced in
paragraph (d)(2) of this AD.
1. Prior to further flight, 1. Reinspect initially between 10 and 20 hours
replace the window with a TIS after replacing the window to ensure that
new window of like design no damage has occurred after installation,
in accordance with the and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
applicable maintenance 1,000 hours TIS or 12 calendar months,
manual or. whichever occurs first, provided no cracks
are found. Use applicable condition column
entry to determine compliance times if cracks
are found or
[[Page 18528]]
2. Prior to further flight, 2. Repeat the inspection specified in
fabricate a placard with paragraph (b) of this AD at intervals not to
the following words in exceed 25 hours TIS or 30 calendar days,
letters at least 0.10-inch whichever occurs first, provided the sum
in height and install this total of all cracks does not exceed 4.3
placard within the pilot's inches in combined length. Replace the window
clear view close to the and continue the actions necessary under the
pressurization controls: ``With cracks found where the sum total of
``AIRPLANE MUST BE all cracks meets or exceeds 4.3 inches in
OPERATED UNPRESSURIZED'', combined length'' condition column.
and prior to further
flight, insert a copy of
this AD into the
Limitations Section of the
FAA-approved Airplane
Flight Manual (AFM).
If cracks are found where the sum Prior to further flight, Reinspect initially between 10 and 20 hours
total of all cracks meets or replace the window with a TIS after replacing the window to ensure that
exceeds 4.3 inches in combined new window of like design no damage has occurred after installation,
length. in accordance with the and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
applicable maintenance 1,000 hours TIS or 12 calendar months,
manual. whichever occurs first, provided no cracks
are found. Use applicable condition column
entry to determine compliance times if cracks
are found.
With cracks found that are less Reinspect within 25 hours Continue this reinspection at intervals not to
than .30 inches (as specified in TIS or 30 calendar days, exceed 25 hours TIS or 30 calendar days,
the applicable service information whichever occurs first. whichever occurs first, provided no crack is
referenced in paragraph (d)(2) of found that is .30 inches or greater or the
this AD) provided the sum total of combined length of all cracks exceeds 4.3
all cracks does not exceed 4.3 inches in combined length. Use applicable
inches in combined length. condition column entry to determine
compliance times if any of these crack limits
are met.
With no cracks found after one of Reinspect within 1,000 Reinspect at intervals not to exceed 1,000
the inspections required by this hours TIS and 12 calendar hours TIS or 12 calendar months, whichever
AD. months after the last occurs first, provided no cracks are found.
inspection, whichever Use applicable condition column entry to
occurs first. determine compliance times if cracks are
found.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) The following specifies the service bulletins that contain
the procedures to accomplish the required inspections:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Models Service bulletins
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) For acrylic cabin windows:
SA26-T and SA26-AT.............. 26-56-20-042, Issued: November 28, 1988, Revised: February 7, 1991.
SA226-T and SA226-T(B).......... 226-56-001, Issued: February 2, 1983, Revised: November 26, 1991.
SA226-AT and SA226-TC........... 226-56-002, Issued: March 3, 1983, Revised: May 29, 1992.
SA227-AT, SA227-AC, and SA227-BC 227-56-002, Issued: January 5, 1984, Revised: May 29, 1992, and April 1, 1993.
SA227-TT........................ 227-56-001, Issued: February 2, 1983, Revised: November 26, 1991.
(2) For acrylic cockpit side
windows:
SA26-T and SA26-AT.............. 26-56-10-038, Issued: October 8, 1984, Revised: February 7, 1991.
SA226-T, SA226-T(B), SA226-AT, 226-56-003, Issued: September 13, 1984, Revised: November 2, 1989.
and SA226-TC.
SA227-AT, SA227-AC, SA227-BC, 227-56-003, Issued: September 13, 1984, Revised: November 2, 1989.
and SA227-TT.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 4: The repetitive inspections required by this AD are also
referenced in the FAA-approved Fairchild Airframe Airworthiness
Limitations Manual, ST-UN-M001.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(f) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
initial or repetitive compliance times that provides an equivalent
level of safety may be approved by the Manager, Airplane
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth,
Texas 76193-0150. The request shall be forwarded through an
appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then
send it to the Manager, Fort Worth ACO.
Note 5: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Fort Worth ACO.
Note 6: Alternative methods of compliance approved in accordance
with AD 93-19-06 (superseded by this action) are not considered
approved as alternative methods of compliance with this AD.
(g) All persons affected by this directive may obtain copies of
the document referred to herein upon request to Fairchild Aircraft,
P.O. Box 790490, San Antonio, Texas 78279-0490; or may examine this
document at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
(h) This amendment supersedes AD 93-19-06, Amendment 39-8705.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 19, 1996.
Henry A. Armstrong,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-10308 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10295 Radio Broadcasting Services; Manitowoc and Two Rivers, WI
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10295]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-88; RM-8760]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Manitowoc and Two Rivers, WI
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition filed by Lyle
Robert Evans d/b/a High Mark Radio Company, proposing the allotment of
Channel 255A to Two Rivers, Wisconsin, as that community's first local
FM service. Channel 255A can be allotted to Two Rivers with a site
restriction 12.1 kilometers (7.5 miles) southwest of the community. The
coordinates for Channel 255A are 44-03-57 and 87-39-44. We shall also
make an editorial correction to the FM Table of Allotments showing the
actual allotment of Channel 272A at Manitowoc, Wisconsin, rather than
Two Rivers, Wisconsin.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before June 10, 1996, and reply
comments on or before June 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner, as follows: Lyle Robert Evans d/b/a High Mark
Radio Company, 1296 Marian Lane, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54304.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-88, adopted April 3,
1996, and released April 18, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the Commission's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street,
NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International
Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,
Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contact.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-10295 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10294 Radio Broadcasting Services; Macomb, IL
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18539-18540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10294]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18540]]
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-87; RM-8782]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Macomb, IL
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by WMS1,
Inc., proposing the allotment of Channel 240A at Macomb, Illinois, as
the community's third local commercial FM transmission service. Channel
240A can be allotted to Macomb in compliance with the Commission's
minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 0.5
kilometers (0.3 miles) south to a void a short-spacing to the licensed
site of Station KMXG(FM), Channel 241C1, Clinton, Iowa. The coordinates
for Channel 240A at Macomb are North Latitude 40-27-09 and West
Longitude 90-40-12.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before June 10, 1996 and reply
comments on or before June 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Larry
Williams, WMS1, Inc., 2901 S. Holmes Ave., Springfield, Illinois 62704
(Petitioner).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-87, adopted April 3,
1996, and released April 18, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-10294 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10292 Radio Broadcasting Services; Deerfield, MO
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10292]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-80; RM-8758]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Deerfield, MO
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition filed by Dale
Hendrix proposing the allotment of Channel 261C3 to Deerfield,
Missouri, as that community's first local service. The coordinates for
Channel 261C3 are 37-49-41 and 94-29-32. There is a site restriction
1.8 kilometers (1.1 mile) southeast of Deerfield.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before June 10, 1996, and reply
comments on or before June 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner, as follows: Dale Hendrix, 872 Allen Road,
Murfreesboro, Tennessee 37129.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-80, adopted March 27,
1996, and released April 18, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the Commission's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street,
NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International
Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,
Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contact.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-10292 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10291 Radio Broadcasting Services; Reynoldsville, PA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18540-18541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10291]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-75; RM-8781]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Reynoldsville, PA
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by
Priority Communications, Inc. seeking the substitution of Channel 293A
for Channel 258A at Reynoldsville, PA, and the modification of Station
WDSN(FM)'s license to specify the alternate Class A channel. The
modification of Station WDSN(FM)'s license to Channel 293A could enable
the station to increase its power from 3 kW to 6 kW. Channel 293A can
be allotted to Reynoldsville in compliance with the Commission's
minimum distance separation requirements and can be used at Station
WDSN(FM)'s present transmitter site, at coordinates 41-08-41 NL and 78-
52-41 WL. Competing expressions of interest in use of Channel 293A at
Reynoldsville will not be accepted since the provisions of Section
1.420(g) do not apply in cases where no change in the class of the
channel is proposed. Canadian concurrence in the allotment is required
since Reynoldsville is located within 320 kilometers (200 miles) of the
U.S.-Canadian border.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before June 10, 1996, and reply
comments on or before June 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the
[[Page 18541]]
petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: John F.
Garziglia, Esq., Pepper & Corazzini, L.L.P., 1776 K Street, NW., Suite
200, Washington, DC 20006 (Counsel to petitioner).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-75, adopted March 25,
1996, and released April 18, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International
Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-10291 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10290 Radio Broadcasting Services; Hobbs, NM
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10290]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-77; RM-8780]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Hobbs, NM
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Great
Plains Broadcasting Co., Inc., seeking the allotment of Channel 279A to
Hobbs, NM, as the community's fifth local FM and seventh local aural
service. Channel 279A can be allotted to Hobbs in compliance with the
Commission's minimum distance separation requirements without the
imposition of a site restriction, at coordinates 32-42-00 NL; 103-07-54
WL. Mexican concurrence is required since Hobbs is located within 320
kilometers (199 miles) of the U.S.-Mexican border.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before June 10, 1996, and reply
comments on or before June 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Johnny
P. Garcia, President, Great Plains Broadcasting Co., Inc., P.O. Box
5131, Hobbs, NM 88240 (Petitioner).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-77, adopted March 22,
1996, and released April 18, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International
Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-10290 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10289 Radio Broadcasting Services; Nekoosa, WI
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18541-18542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10289]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-76; RM-8770]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Nekoosa, WI
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition filed by Lyle R.
Evans d/b/a The Radio Company, proposing the allotment of Channel 288A
to Nekoosa, Wisconsin, as that community's second FM broadcast service.
There is a site restriction 11.9 kilometers (7.4 miles) west of the
community at coordinates 44-18-33 and 90-03-10.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before June 10, 1996, and reply
comments on or before June 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner, as follows: Lyle R. Evans d/b/a The Radio
Company, 1296 Marian Lane, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54304.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-76, adopted March 11,
1996, and released April 18, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the Commission's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street,
NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International
Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,
Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contact.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
[[Page 18542]]
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-10289 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10251 Aluminum Tris (O-ethylphosphonate); Pesticide Tolerance
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18533-18536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10251]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18534]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 5E4434/P-651; FRL-5363-3]
RIN 2070-AB18
Aluminum Tris (O-ethylphosphonate); Pesticide Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to establish a time-limited tolerance for
residues of the fungicide aluminum tris (O-ethylphosphonate) (also
referred to in this document as fosetyl-Al) in or on the raw
agricultural commodity blueberry. The proposed regulation to establish
a maximum permissible level for residues of the fungicide was requested
in a petition submitted by the Interregional Research Project No. 4
(IR-4). The time-limited tolerance for blueberry would expire on
December 31, 1998.
DATES: Comments, identified by the document control number [PP 5E4434/
P-651], must be received on or before May 28, 1996.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Rm. 1132 CM #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. Comments and data
may also be submitted to OPP by sending electronic mail (e-mail) to:
[email protected].
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data
will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII
file format. All comments and data in electronic form must be
identified by the docket number [PP 5E4434/P-651]. Electronic comments
on this proposed rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository
Libraries. Additional information on electronic submissions can be
found in the ``SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION'' section of this document.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
``Confidential Business Information''. CBI should not be submitted
through e-mail. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
comment that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in
the public record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed
publicly by EPA without prior notice. All written comments will be
available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the Virginia address
given above, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Hoyt L. Jamerson,
Registration Division (7505W), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Office location and telephone number: Sixth Floor, Crystal Station #1,
2800 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 308-8783; e-
mail:[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Interregional Research Project No. 4
(IR-4), New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, P.O. Box 231,
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, has submitted pesticide
petition (PP) 5E4434 to EPA on behalf of the Agricultural Experiment
Stations of Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Oregon.
This petition requests that the Administrator, pursuant to section
408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C.
346a(e), amend 40 CFR 180.415 by establishing a time-limited tolerance
for residues of the fungicide fosetyl-Al [aluminum tris (O-
ethylphosphonate)], in or on the raw agricultural commodity blueberry
at 40 parts per million (ppm). The petitioner requested that the
tolerance expire on December 31, 1998, to allow IR-4 sufficient time to
develop additional magnitude of residue data in support of a permanent
tolerance for blueberries.
The scientific data submitted in the petition and other relevant
material have been evaluated. The toxicological data considered in
support of the proposed tolerance include:
(1) A 2-year feeding study in dogs fed diets containing 0, 10,000,
20,000, or 40,000 ppm with a no-observed-effect level (NOEL) of 10,000
ppm (250 milligrams (mg)/kilogram (kg)/day). The lowest-observed-effect
level (LOEL) was 20,000 ppm (500 mg/kg/day) based on a slight
degeneration of the testes.
(2) A 2-year feeding/carcinogenicity study in rat fed diets
containing 0, 2,000, 8,000, or 40,000/30,000 ppm with a systemic NOEL
of 8,000 ppm (400 mg/kg/day). The 40,000 ppm dose was reduced to 30,000
ppm after the first two weeks of the study due to the occurrence of red
urine and staining of the abdominal fur in male and female rats dosed
at 40,000 ppm. Systemic effects (urinary tract stone formation and
epithelial irritation) were observed at the high dose level. The study
also demonstrated a significantly elevated incidence of urinary bladder
tumors (adenomas and carcinomas combined) at the highest dose tested.
The tumors were mainly seen in surviving males at the time of terminal
sacrifice.
The registrant submitted additional information regarding the
relationship between the induction of urinary bladder tumors and the
presence of urinary bladder stones in rats, which indicates that the
extremely high dose level (40,0000/30,000 ppm) fed to rats produces
urinary tract toxicity that precedes and seems to lead to the
carcinogenic response in rats.
(3) A 2-year feeding/carcinogenicity study in mice fed diets
containing 0, 2,500, 10,000, or 20,000/30,000 ppm. The 20,000 ppm dose
was increased to 30,000 ppm during week 19 of the study. The NOEL for
systemic effects is established at 20,000/30,000 ppm (3,000/4,500 mg/
kg/day) based on hematological effects. There were no carcinogenic
effects observed under the conditions of this study.
(4) A three-generation reproduction study in rats fed diets
containing 0, 6,000, 12,000 or 24,000 ppm with a NOEL for reproductive
effects of 6,000 ppm (300 mg/kg/day). The LOEL is established at 12,000
ppm (600 mg/kg/day) based on decreased pup litter and pup weight.
(5) A developmental toxicity study in rats fed doses of 500, 1,000
or 4,000 mg/kg/day with a NOEL for developmental toxicity of 1,000 mg/
kg/day based on a significant reduction in litter and fetal weight, a
slight increase in malformations, and increased skeletal variations at
the 4,000 mg/kg/day dose level.
(6) A developmental toxicity study in rabbits fed doses of 125,
250, or 500 mg/kg/day with no developmental toxicity observed under the
conditions of the study.
(7) Fosetyl-Al was tested and found be negative for mutagenic
effects in a battery of studies designed to detect gene mutation,
chromosomal aberrations, and other genotoxic effects.
(8) A metabolism study in rats indicates that fosetyl-Al is
hydrolyzed to ethanol, which is excreted in expired air as carbon
dioxide, and to phosphite, which is excreted in the urine. In addition,
some of the compound is also excreted unchanged in the urine.
The Office of Pesticide Programs', Health Effects Division,
Carcinogenicity Peer Review Committee (CPRC)
[[Page 18535]]
determined that fosetyl-Al was not amenable to classification using
current Agency cancer guidelines. Additionally it was concluded that
based on a mechanistic evaluation of the only tumor which occurred at
exceptionally high doses (40,000/30,0000 ppm) in the bladder of male
rats and possibly in the bladder and renal pelvis of female rats, it
appears that humans are not likely to be exposed to doses of fosetyl-Al
that produce urinary tract toxicity which precedes and leads to the
carcinogenic response observed in rats. Based on the available
information, the CPRC concludes that the pesticidal use of fosetyl-al
is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans. EPA has,
therefore, chosen to use the Reference Dose (RfD) to quantify dietary
risk to humans.
The Reference Dose (RfD) is calculated at 3.0 mg/kg of body weight/
day. The RfD is based on a NOEL of 250 mg/kg/day from the 2-year dog
feeding study and an uncertainty factor of 100. The theoretical maximum
residue contribution (TMRC) from existing tolerances and the proposed
tolerance for blueberry utilizes 2.3 percent of the RfD for the U.S.
population, while the TMRC for non-nursing infants utilizes 4.6 percent
of the RfD. EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100
percent of the RfD.
There is no reasonable expectation that secondary residues will
occur in milk, eggs, or meat of livestock and poultry since there are
no livestock feed items associated with this action. The nature of the
residue in plants is adequately understood. An adequate analytical
method, is available for enforcement purposes. Prior to its publication
in the Pesticide Analytical Manual, Volume II (PAM II), the enforcement
method is being made available in the interim to anyone who is
interested in pesticide residue enforcement from: By mail, Calvin
Furlow, Public Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations
Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office
location and telephone number: Crystal Mall #2, Rm 1128, 1921 Jefferson
Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202, telephone: 703-305-5805.
There are presently no actions pending against the continued
registration of this chemical.
Based on the information and data considered, the Agency has
determined that the tolerance established by amending 40 CFR part 180
would protect the public health. Therefore, it is proposed that the
tolerance be established as set forth below.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, which contains any of the
ingredients listed herein, may request within 30 days after publication
of this notice in the Federal Register that this rulemaking proposal be
referred to an Advisory Committee in accordance with section 408(e) of
the FFDCA.
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [PP 5E4434/P-651] (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does
not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
opp-D[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the
beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order (i.e.,
Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines ``significant'' as
those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially
affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal
governments or communities (also known as ``economically
significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement, grants, user
fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the
principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
This action does not impose any enforceable duty, or contain any
``unfunded mandates'' as described in Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), or require prior consultation as
specified by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993),
entitled Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, or special
consideration as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994).
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 11, 1996.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR Part 180 be amended as
follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. In Sec. 180.415, by adding a new paragraph (c), to read as
follows:
[[Page 18536]]
Sec. 180.415 Aluminum tris (O-ethylphosphonate); tolerances for
residues.
* * * * *
(c) Time-limited tolerances are established for residues of the
fungicide aluminum tris (O-ethylphosphonate) in or on the following raw
agricultural commodities:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million Expiration date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blueberry.......................... 40 Dec. 31, 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-10251 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10083 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lower Grand River, LA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18532-18533]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10083]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD08-96-003]
RIN 2115-AE47
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lower Grand River, LA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: At the request of the Iberville Parish School Board, the Coast
Guard is considering a change to the regulation governing the operation
of the pontoon drawbridge on LA State Road 77 across the Lower Grand
River (Intracoastal Waterway, Morgan City to Port Allen, Alternate
Route), mile 47.0 at Grosse Tete, Iberville Parish, Louisiana:
The proposed regulation would require that the bridge open on
signal; except that from 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. and from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, other than Federal holidays, and only
during the months when local schools are in session, the bridge would
be permitted to remain closed to navigation for the uninterrupted
crossing of school bus and other vehicular traffic.
Presently, the draw of the bridge is required to open on signal,
except that from 6 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. and from 2:30 p.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, other than Federal holidays, and only during the
months when local schools are in session, the bridge need not open for
navigation.
This action would extend the closure time in the morning and
afternoon by one-half hour to accommodate school buses which must
adhere to schedules based on new staggered starting times for the
Iberville Parish Schools. This action would benefit school children in
their timely arrival at school, while still providing for the
reasonable needs of navigation.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to Commander (ob), Eighth Coast
Guard District, 501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-3396,
or
[[Page 18533]]
may be delivered to Room 1313 at the same address between 8:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is (504) 589-2965.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Phil Johnson, Bridge
Administration Branch, at the address given above, telephone (504) 589-
2965.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
Interested parties are invited to participate in the proposed
rulemaking by submitting written views, comments, or arguments. Persons
submitting comments should include their names and addresses, identify
the bridge and give reasons for concurrence with or any recommended
change in this proposal. Persons desiring acknowledgment that their
comments have been received should enclose a stamped, self-addressed
postcard or envelope.
The Coast Guard plans no public hearing. Persons may request a
public hearing by writing to the Eighth Coast Guard District at the
address under ADDRESSES. The request should include reasons why a
hearing would be beneficial. If it is determined that the opportunity
for oral presentations will aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard will
hold a public hearing at a time and place announced by a later notice
in the Federal Register.
The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, will evaluate all
communications received and determine a course of final action on this
proposal. The proposed regulation may be changed in the light of
comments received.
Background and Purpose
The Iberville Parish School Board has requested the regulation
because a new, staggered starting time has been implemented for the
schools in the Parish. The extension of the morning and afternoon
closure for the LA 77 bridge will assist school buses in transporting
the students to and from their classes in a timely manner. The new
proposed regulation would allow for the free flow of vehicular traffic,
while still serving the reasonable needs of navigational interests.
Discussion of Proposed Rules
The LA 77 bridge is a pontoon bridge. Navigational clearances
provided by the bridge are 2.0 feet vertical above mean high water in
the closed to navigation position and unlimited vertical clearance in
the open to navigation position. Horizontal clearance is 125.0 feet.
Navigation on the waterway consists of tugs with tows, commercial
fishing vessels, occasional small oil field work boats and recreational
craft. Data obtained from the Louisiana Department of Transportation
and Development show that, during a six month period ending late in
August 1995, the number of vessels that passed the bridge during the
proposed extended half-hour closure (7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., Monday
through Friday) totaled 242. This breaks down to about 1.3 vessels per
day during this half-hour period. Since this count includes vessels
that were waiting because of the already in effect one and one-half
hour closure, 1.3 vessels are a very minimal amount of traffic being
detained. The Coast Guard feels that this request for a one-half hour
extension is reasonable.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposal is not a significant regulatory action under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of
potential cost and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It has
not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that
order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and
procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;
February 26, 1979).
The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposal to be
so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the
regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this proposal, if adopted, will have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. ``Small entities'' may include (1) small businesses and not-
for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and
are not dominant in their fields and (2) governmental jurisdictions
with populations of less than 50,000.
Since the proposed rule also considers the needs of local
commercial fishing vessels, the economic impact is expected to be
minimal. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b)
that this proposal, if adopted, will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. If, however, you
think that your business or organization qualifies as a small entity
and that this rule will have a significant economic impact on your
business or organization, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES)
explaining why you think it qualifies and in what way and to what
degree this rule will economically effect it.
Collection of Information
This proposal contains no collection-of-information requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Federalism Implications
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the proposed rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this
proposal and concluded that under paragraph 2.B.2. of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1B, this proposal is categorically excluded from
further environmental documentation. A ``Categorical Exclusion
Determination'' is available in the docket for inspection or copying
where indicated under addresses.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend Part 117 of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 117 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g).
2. In section 117.478, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 117.478 Lower Grand River.
* * * * *
(b) The draw of the LA 77 bridge, mile 47.0 (Alternate Route) at
Grosse Tete, shall open on signal; except that, from about August 15 to
about June 5 (the school year), the draw need not be opened from 6 a.m.
to 8 a.m. and from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except
Federal holidays. The draw shall open on signal at any time for an
emergency aboard a vessel.
* * * * *
Dated: February 14, 1996.
R.C. North,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 96-10083 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10060 Airworthiness Directives; Hartzell Propeller Inc. HC-A3V, HC-B3M, HC-B3T, HC-B4M, HC-B4T, and HC-B5M Series Propellers
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18520-18524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10060]
========================================================================
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. 82 / Friday, April 26, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 18520]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-ANE-30]
Airworthiness Directives; Hartzell Propeller Inc. HC-A3V, HC-B3M,
HC-B3T, HC-B4M, HC-B4T, and HC-B5M Series Propellers
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 Hartzell Propeller Inc. (Hartzell)
HC-A3V, HC-B3M, HC-B3T, HC-B4M, HC- B4T, and HC-B5M series propellers.
This proposal would require hub replacement over a 10-year time period
with a concurrent blade and blade clamp inspection. This proposal is
prompted by reports of two propeller hub failures and one crack
indication that occurred on Mitsubishi MU-2B-60 aircraft, the
similarity of construction and load transfer paths between the Hartzell
propeller models installed on the Mitsubishi MU-2 aircraft and
Hartzell's 3-, 4-, and 5-bladed steel hub propeller models, several
blade shank failures, and reports of cracks in blade clamps. The
actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent propeller
hub, blade, or blade clamp failure, which can result in loss of
aircraft control.
DATES: Comments must be received by June 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), New England Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-ANE-30, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299. Comments may be inspected at
this location between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Hartzell Propeller Inc., One Propeller Place, Piqua, OH
45356-2634. This information may be examined at the FAA, New England
Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, 12 New England Executive
Park, Burlington, MA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tomaso DiPaolo, Aerospace Engineer,
Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
2300 East Devon Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018; telephone (847) 294-7031,
fax (847) 294-7834.
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 should identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-ANE-30.'' 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, New England Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-ANE-30, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803-5299.
Discussion
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has received reports of
two hub failures and one crack indication that occurred on Hartzell
Propeller Inc. (Hartzell) HC-B4TN-5(D,G,J)L/LT10282(B,K)-5.3R and HC-
B4TN-5(D,G,J)L/LT10282N(B,K)-5.3R propellers installed on Mitsubishi
MU-2B-60 aircraft. This airworthiness directive (AD) action is prompted
by those reports and the similarity of construction and load transfer
paths between the Hartzell propeller models installed on the Mitsubishi
MU- 2B-60 aircraft and other Hartzell 3-, 4-, and 5-bladed steel hub
propeller model installations. This condition, if not corrected, could
result in hub failure, which can result in loss of aircraft control.
The FAA has determined that the most effective way to address all
hub strength concerns is to require propeller hub replacement. The
following are some of the benefits of a replacement program:
1. Improved propeller hub metallurgy;
2. Elimination of any surface decarburization in the pilot tube
bore;
3. Introduction of compressive residual stress in the pilot tube
bore;
4. Improved corrosion protection in the pilot tube bore;
5. Improved surface finish in the pilot tube bore.
Additionally, the referenced propeller models have been involved in
several incidents of blade shank failures and have been reported to
have cracks in the blade clamps. These conditions, if not corrected,
could result in blade or blade clamp failure, which can result in loss
of aircraft control. Therefore, the FAA has determined that a
concurrent inspection of the blades and blade clamps at the time of hub
replacement is necessary to detect cracks in either component.
The FAA has issued previous AD's to address a similar condition for
specific propeller models and aircraft combinations. This AD, however,
addresses a broader population. Airworthiness directive 95-01-02 is
applicable to Hartzell propeller models HC-B4TN-5(D,G,J)L/LT10282(B,K)-
5.3R, HC-B4TN-5(D,G,J)L/
[[Page 18521]]
LT10282N(B,K)-5.3R, and HC-B4TN- 5(D,G,J)L/LT10282NS(B,K)-5.3R
installed on Mitsubishi MU-2B- 26A, -36A, -40, -60; MU-2B-30 modified
by Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA336GL-D & SA339GL-D; MU-2B-36
Modified by STC SA2413SW and any other MU-2 Series aircraft which have
the referenced propeller models installed. Airworthiness directive 95-
03-03 is applicable to Hartzell propeller models HC-B4TN-3/
T10173F(N)(B,K)-12.5 and HC-B4TN- 3A/T10173F(N)(B,K)-12.5 installed on
Beech A100 and A100A aircraft. Operators of the referenced propellers
and aircraft combinations must refer to the previous AD's for required
actions.
The FAA has reviewed and approved the technical contents of
Hartzell Propeller Inc. Manual 118F, Revision 2, dated May 1992, pages
15 to 19 and 57 through 96, for 3- and 4-bladed hub models, and Manual
132A, Revision 2, dated June 1992, pages IV-5 to IV-11 and VII-1 to
VII-46, for 5-bladed hub models, that describe procedures for
disassembling and reassembling the propeller with a new hub; Hartzell
Propeller Inc. Service Manual 202A, Revision 3, dated June 1995, pages
201 through 215, that describes the magnetic particle inspection
procedure for the propeller blade clamps; and Hartzell Propeller Inc.
Service Bulletin No. 136H, dated March 12, 1993, that describes
inspection procedures for the propeller blade bearing bores.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the
proposed AD would require, over a 10-year time period, propeller hub
replacement with a concurrent blade and blade clamp inspection for
Hartzell Propeller Inc. Models HC-A3VF-7 ( ), HC-B3TF-7( ), HC-B3MN-3(
), HC-B3TN-2( ), HC-B3TN-3( ), HC-B3TN-5 ( ), HC-B4MN-5( ), HC-B4MP-3(
), HC-B4TN-3( ), HC-B4TN-5( ), HC-B5MA-3( ), HC-B5MP-3( ), HC-B5MP-5(
), HC-B3MN-5( ), HC- B3TN-4( ), HC-B4MP-4( ), and HC-B5MN-3( )
propellers. This propeller hub replacement program has been scheduled
to require replacement of the most aged propeller hubs first.
Additionally, the replacement program will accelerate the replacement
of the 4 and 5 blade propeller hubs, while still replacing the 3 blade
propeller hubs, with completion of the program in 10 years. Hartzell
Propeller Inc. has advised the FAA that they will provide new hubs at
special prices for the duration of this AD program. The actions would
be required to be accomplished in accordance with the service documents
described previously.
There are approximately 24,320 propellers of the affected design in
the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 50% of the subject
propellers are installed on aircraft of U.S. registry and that 75% will
have the work done during normally scheduled propeller maintenance. For
those who accomplish the AD action during normal propeller maintenance,
the parts cost will average $1,955 with no additional labor. For those
who accomplish the AD action by itself, the parts cost will average
$2,174, plus approximately 27 work hours per propeller at an average
labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the total cost
impact on U.S. operators is estimated to be $29,363,360. The cost will
vary between the 3-, 4-, and 5-bladed propeller configurations and the
above data represents an average cost.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Hartzell Propeller Inc.: Docket No. 95-ANE-30.
Applicability: Hartzell Propeller Inc. (Hartzell) Models HC-
A3VF-7( ), HC-B3TF-7( ), HC-B3MN-3( ), HC-B3TN-2( ), HC-B3TN-3( ),
HC-B3TN-5 ( ), HC-B4MN-5( ), HC-B4MP-3( ), HC-B4TN-3( ), HC-B4TN-5(
), HC-B5MA-3( ), HC-B5MP-3( ), HC-B5MP-5( ), HC-B3MN-5( ), HC-B3TN-
4( ), HC-B4MP-4( ), and HC-B5MN-3( ) propellers. These propellers
are installed on but not limited to the following aircraft:
Aerospace Technologies of Australia PTY LTD N22B, N24A, N22S; Air
Tractor, Inc. AT-301, AT-302, AT-400, AT-400A, AT-401, AT-402, AT-
502, AT-503, AT-802;
Agusta S.p.A. SF600, F.260;
Ayres Corporation S-2R, S2R-T11, S2R-T15, S2R-T34, S2R-T56, S2RHG-
T65;
Beech A36, 65-90, 65-90A, C90, B90, E90, C90A, F90, 100, 200, 200C,
A200C, B200, B200C, 200T, 200CT, A200CT, B200T, B200CT, 65-80, 65-
A90-1, 65-A90-2, 65-A90-4, 99, 99A, A99A, B99, A200, C99, H90, 300,
300LW, B300, B300C, 1900, 1900C, T34C, T34C-1;
Cessna 208, 208A, 208B, 421, 425, 441, 402, P210N;
Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A. (CASA) C-212-CB, -CC, -CE, -CF;
deHavilland Aircraft Co., Ltd. D.H.114;
deHavilland Inc. DHC-2, DHC-3, DHC-4; DHC-6, 1, 100, 200, 300;
Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S/A Embraer EMB-110P1, EMB-110P2;
Fairchild Aircraft, Inc. SA26-AT, -T; SA226-AT, -TB;
Frakes Aviation (Gulfstream American ) G-73;
Great Lakes Aircraft Co. 2T-1A;
Helio HST-550, HST-550A;
Industrie Aeronautiche e Meccaniche Piaggio P.166DL3;
Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd. Arava 101, 101B;
McDonnell Douglas DC-3 series;
McKinnon Enterprises, Inc. (Grumman) G-21E, G21-G;
Mitsubishi MU-2B series;
Pacific Aerospace Corporation, Ltd. FU24-954, FU2A-954;
Partenavia Costruzioni Aeronautiche S.p.A. AP68TP 300, AP68TP 600;
Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. PC-6/A-H2, /B1-H2, /B-H2, /B2-H2, /B2-H4, PC-
7;
Piper Aircraft Corporation PA31-T1, -T2, -T3; PA31P; PA42, -42-720,
-42-720R;
Prop-Jets, Inc., Interceptor (Aero Commander) (Meyers) 400;
Schweizer Aircraft Corp. (Grumman) G-164A, G-164B, G-164B-34T, -15T;
G-164D;
Short Bros. Limited & Harland Ltd. SC-7 series, SD3 series;
[[Page 18522]]
Twin Commander Aircraft Corp. 680T, V, 681, 690A, 690B, 690C, 695,
695A;
Weatherly Aviation Company 620TP.
Note 1: The parenthesis that appear in the propeller models
indicate the presence or absence of additional letter(s) which vary
the basic propeller hub model designation. This airworthiness
directive (AD) is applicable regardless of whether these letters are
present or absent on the propeller hub model designation.
Note 2: The above is not a complete list of aircraft which may
contain the affected Hartzell Propeller Inc. Models HC-A3VF-7 ( ),
HC-B3TF-7( ), HC-B3MN-3( ), HC-B3TN-2( ), HC-B3TN-3( ), HC-3TN-5( ),
HC-B4MN-5( ), HC-B4MP-3( ), HC-B4TN-3( ), HC-B4TN-5( ), HC-B5MA-3(
), HC-B5MP-3( ), HC-B5MP-5( ), HC-B3MN-5( ), HC-B3TN-4( ), HC-B4MP-
4( ), and HC-B5MN-3( ) propellers because of installation approvals
made by, for example, Supplemental Type Certificate or field
approval under FAA Form 337 ``Major Repair and Alteration.'' It is
the responsibility of the owner, operator, and person returning the
aircraft to service to determine if an aircraft has an affected
propeller.
Note 3: This AD applies to each propeller 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 propellers that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the authority
provided in paragraph (h) to request approval from the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). This approval may address either no
action, if the current configuration eliminates the unsafe
condition, or different actions necessary to address the unsafe
condition described in this AD. Such a request should include an
assessment of the effect of the changed configuration on the unsafe
condition addressed by this AD. In no case does the presence of any
modification, alteration, or repair remove any propeller from the
applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent propeller hub, blade, or blade clamp failure, which
can result in loss of aircraft control, accomplish the following:
(a) This AD requires no action for operators with Hartzell
propeller models HC-B4TN-5(D,G,J)L/LT10282(B,K)-5.3R, HC-B4TN-
5(D,G,J)L/LT10282N(B,K)-5.3R, and HC-B4TN-5(D,G,J)L/LT10282NS(B,K)-
5.3R installed on Mitsubishi MU-2B- 26A, -36A, -40, -60; MU-2B-30
modified by Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA336GL-D & SA339GL-
D; MU-2B-36 Modified by STC SA2413SW and any other MU-2 Series
aircraft which have the referenced propeller models installed. These
operators must, however, comply with AD 95-01-02.
(b) This AD requires no action for operators with Hartzell
propeller models HC-B4TN-3/T10173F(N)(B,K)-12.5 and HC-B4TN-3A/
T10173F(N)(B,K)-12.5 installed on Beech A100 and A100A aircraft.
These operators must, however, comply with AD 95-03-03.
(c) Disassemble the propeller in accordance with Hartzell
Propeller Inc. Service Manual 118F, Revision 2, dated May 1992,
pages 15 to 19, for 3- and 4-bladed hub models, and Service Manual
132A, Revision 2, dated June 1992, pages IV-5 to IV-11, for 5-bladed
hub models, remove the hub from service, and replace the hub with a
serviceable hub in accordance with the compliance schedule in Table
1 of this AD.
(1) Utilize Table 1 of this AD in accordance with the following
example: Model HC-B3TN-3( ) series propellers, starting with serial
numbers (S/N's) BU1 through BU377, require replacement before the
end of December of calendar year 1996. Serial numbers BU378 through
BU754 require hub replacement before the end of June of calendar
year 1997, and so forth.
(2) The affected hubs can only be replaced with serviceable hubs
having a S/N not listed in Table 1 of this AD for that propeller
model, or serviceable hubs having a S/N for which replacement is not
yet required in accordance with Table 1 of this AD.
(3) Some existing propeller hub S/N's include a suffix letter,
such as an ``A.'' The presence or absence of this letter has no
significance in determining compliance.
(4) Since a hub may be used in various propeller models, the S/N
and the model number shown in Table 1 of this AD may not coincide.
Precedence is given to the hub S/N in determining compliance
requirements. The hub model is only given as a reference.
(5) Hub replacement must be accomplished by the end of the
calendar month indicated at the top of the appropriate column in
Table 1 of this AD. The S/N ranges in this table identify the
propeller hubs that require replacement by the end of that month.
BILLING CODE 4190-13-P
[[Page 18523]]
Table 1
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26AP96.000
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
[[Page 18524]]
(d) Perform a fluorescent penetrant inspection of blades for
cracks in accordance with Hartzell Propeller Inc. Service Bulletin
136H, dated March 12, 1993, prior to installing a serviceable hub.
(e) Perform magnetic particle inspection of blade clamps for
cracks in accordance with Hartzell Service Manual 202A, Revision 3,
dated June 1995, pages 201 to 215, prior to installing a serviceable
hub.
(f) If cracks are found in either the blade or the blade clamps,
prior to further flight replace with serviceable blade or blade
clamps.
(g) Reassemble the propeller in accordance with Hartzell
Propeller Inc. Service Manual 118F, Revision 2, dated May 1992,
pages 57 through 96, for 3- and 4-bladed hub models, and Service
Manual 132A, Revision 2, dated June 1992, pages VII-1 to -46, for 5-
blade hub models.
(h) 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, Chicago Aircraft Certification
Office. The request should be forwarded through an appropriate FAA
Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send
it to the Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office.
Note: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this airworthiness directive,
if any, may be obtained from the Chicago Aircraft Certification
Office.
(i) 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 aircraft to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 16, 1996.
Jay J. Pardee,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-10060 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10058 Supplemental Security Income for the Aged, Blind, and Disabled; Charging Administration Fees for Making State Supplementary Payments; Interest Charging on State Supplementary Payment Funds
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18528-18532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10058]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18529]]
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
20 CFR Part 416
[Regulations No. 16]
RIN 0960-AD75
Supplemental Security Income for the Aged, Blind, and Disabled;
Charging Administration Fees for Making State Supplementary Payments;
Interest Charging on State Supplementary Payment Funds
AGENCY: Social Security Administration, (SSA).
ACTION: Proposed rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We propose to revise our rules to bring them into accord with
statutory changes which require the Social Security Administration
(SSA) to charge the States an administration fee for making
supplementary payments on behalf of States and authorize SSA to charge
the States an additional services fee for performing services at the
request of States not customarily provided. We also propose to conform
our regulations to reflect the requirements of the law regarding the
transfer of funds from States to SSA for use in making supplementary
payments.
DATES: To be sure that your comments are considered, we must receive
them no later than June 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted in writing to the Commissioner
of Social Security, P.O. Box 1585, Baltimore, MD 21235, sent by telefax
to (410) 966-2830, sent by E-mail to ``[email protected]'', or
delivered to the Division of Regulations and Rulings, Social Security
Administration, 3-B-1 Operations Building, 6401 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, MD 21235, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on regular
business days. Comments may be inspected during these same hours by
making arrangements with the contact person shown below.
The electronic file of this document is available on the Federal
Bulletin Board (FBB) at 9:00 A.M. on the date of publication in the
Federal Register. To download the file, modem dial (202) 512-1387. The
FBB instructions will explain how to download the file and the fee.
This file is in WordPerfect format and will remain on the FBB during
the comment period.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Henry D. Lerner, Legal Assistant,
Division of Regulations and Rulings, Social Security Administration,
6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, (410) 965-1762 for
information about these rules. For information on eligibility or
claiming benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
These proposed regulations reflect the provisions of section 13731
of Public Law 103-66 (the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of
1993) and Public Law 101-453 (the Cash Management Improvement Act
(CMIA) of 1990) as amended by Public Law 102-589 (the Cash Management
Improvement Act Amendments of 1992). From the inception of the
supplemental security income (SSI) program in January 1974 through
September 1993, SSA did not have the authority to charge States for the
costs it incurred in administering mandatory and optional State
supplementary payment programs. During that same period of time, SSA
did not have specific authority to charge States for the costs it
incurred in performing, at the request of the States, services not
customarily provided in the administration of State supplementary
payment programs.
Section 13731 of Public Law 103-66, effective for supplementary
payments made for any month beginning on or after October 1, 1993,
requires SSA to charge the States an administration fee for making
supplementary payments on behalf of States and authorizes SSA to charge
the States an additional services fee for performing services at the
request of States not customarily provided.
The CMIA requires that transfers of funds from the States to SSA
for the payment of supplementary payments be timed to coincide as
closely as possible with disbursements of those funds to eligible
individuals. In the case of certain States, transfers which do not
occur on due dates and/or which are not in appropriate amounts will
cause the imposition of an interest liability on either the States or
on the Federal Government in accordance with the regulations of the
United States Department of the Treasury implementing the CMIA. The
provisions of the CMIA were effective on the later of July 1, 1993, or
the first day of the State's fiscal year beginning in 1993. Prior to
the effective date of the CMIA, no interest liability was incurred by
either the States or the Federal Government on the transfer of funds to
SSA for use in making State supplementary payments.
Present Policy
At the outset of the SSI program, States were encouraged to
supplement the Federal benefit. As an incentive to provide a
supplement, States that agreed to make optional supplementary payments
and signed an agreement to have those payments administered by the
Federal Government would not be charged a fee for Federal
administration. States required to pay mandatory supplementary payments
could also enter into agreements providing for Federal administration
of those payments at no cost to the States. States electing Federal
administration were required to periodically transfer to SSA only
amounts equal to the expenditures made by SSA for supplementary
payments. This former requirement is still reflected in the current
regulations at Secs. 416.2010(c) and 416.2090(a).
On October 1, 1993, pursuant to amendments made to the Social
Security Act (the Act) and to section 212(b)(3) of Public Law 93-66 by
section 13731 of Public Law 103-66, SSA began charging States that had
elected Federal administration of optional and/or mandatory State
supplementary payments a fee for administering those payments. The
administration fee is charged monthly and is derived by multiplying the
number of State supplementary payments made by SSA on behalf of a State
for a month by the applicable dollar rate for the fiscal year (FY), as
prescribed in section 13731 of Public Law 103-66. The dollar rates are
as follows: for FY 1994, $1.67; for FY 95, $3.33; for FY 96, $5.00;
and, for FY 1997 and each succeeding FY, $5.00 or such different rate
as determined by SSA to be appropriate for any particular State, taking
into account the complexity of administering the State's supplementary
payment program. The number of supplementary payments made by SSA in a
month is the total number of checks issued, and direct deposits made,
to recipients in that month, that are composed in whole or in part of
State supplementary funds. The number of supplementary payments
include, for example, recurring monthly payments (ongoing monthly
payments to individuals who maintain eligibility from the previous
month); supplemental payments (payments certified after the date
established for the regular transfer of payment data to the United
States Department of the Treasury); daily payments (non-recurring
initial claims or post-entitlement payments including one-time payments
such as those made to correct underpayments); erroneous payments
(overpayments and payments to ineligibles); split payments (multiple
check payments resulting from the systems safeguard limiting single
checks to an amount not greater than
[[Page 18530]]
$49,999.99); unnegotiated check payments (payments by check not
presented for payment by the recipient within 180 days of issuance);
replacement checks (duplicate checks issued when recipients allege
nonreceipt of original check issuances); and, installment payments
(payments made over a period of months, the sum of which is equal to
amounts due recipients).
Section 13731 of Public Law 103-66 also authorizes SSA to charge a
State an additional services fee if, at the request of the State, SSA
agrees to provide the State with additional services beyond the level
customarily provided in the administration of State supplementary
payments. SSA is not required to perform any additional services
requested by a State and may, at its sole discretion, refuse to perform
those additional services. An additional services fee charged a State
may be a one-time charge or, if the furnished services result in
ongoing costs to the Federal Government, a monthly or less frequent
charge to the State for providing such services. Section 13731 of
Public Law 103-66 requires that the additional services fee be in an
amount that SSA determines is necessary to cover all costs (including
indirect costs) incurred by the Federal Government in furnishing the
additional services. Prior to the effective date of section 13731 of
Public Law 103-66, SSA had no specific authority to impose additional
services fees.
The CMIA was enacted to ensure greater efficiency, effectiveness
and equity in the exchange of funds between the Federal Government and
the States. For purposes of Federal administration of State
supplementary payments, the CMIA requires that the transfer of funds
from the States to SSA for use in making supplementary payments be
timed to coincide as closely as possible with the actual payment of
those funds to recipients. While all States are required to comply with
the funding techniques of the CMIA, pursuant to the implementing
regulations of the United States Department of the Treasury at 31 CFR
Part 205, only those States whose State supplementary payment programs
meet the requirements of a major Federal assistance program in their
respective States are subject to the interest liability provisions of
the CMIA. For those States, transfers of supplementary payment funds to
SSA which are not made on due dates and/or are not made in appropriate
amounts will cause the imposition of an interest liability on either
the State, or the Federal Government. Currently, SSA administers the
supplementary payment programs of 26 States and the District of
Columbia. The supplementary payment programs of 12 of those States and
the District of Columbia meet the requirements of a major Federal
assistance program and, thus, are subject to the interest liability
provisions of the CMIA.
Each month, States are notified of the amount of funds they must
transfer to SSA to be used in the succeeding month to make
supplementary payments and to pay administration fees. Notification is
made, generally, 7 work days before the end of the month. For purposes
of complying with the funding technique requirements of the CMIA and
its implementing regulations, all State funds must be received by SSA
by the fifth Federal business day following the day the regularly
recurring monthly supplementary payments are issued. This date is the
State supplementary payment transfer date and represents the dollar-
weighted average day of clearance of all SSI/State supplementary
payment checks and direct deposits made to individuals in a month.
Section 1616(d) of the Act and section 212(b)(3) of Public Law 93-66,
as amended by section 13731 of Public Law 103-66, require that the
States pay administration fees on the same day they transfer to SSA the
amounts necessary to make State supplementary payments. However, the
provisions of the CMIA apply only to the amounts transferred to SSA for
use in making supplementary payments. Therefore, the interest
provisions of the CMIA are inapplicable to the payment of
administration fees not made on transfer dates and/or not made in
appropriate amounts. However, administration fee payment delinquencies
by States are subject to the provisions of the claims collection
regulations at 45 CFR part 30, which include the imposition of interest
on amounts due SSA. These Department of Health and Human Services
regulations remain applicable after March 30, 1995, to the assessment
of interest on delinquent administration fees by SSA pursuant to
section 106(b) of Public Law 103-296, the Social Security Independence
and Program Improvements Act of 1994.
It is not possible for SSA to forecast the precise amount of State
expenditures that will be made in the subsequent month. Therefore, the
amounts transferred on the State supplementary payment transfer date
are based on estimates made by SSA. After the close of the month for
which the amounts are transferred, when final expenditure figures
become available, those amounts will be revealed to be either more or
less than actually expended, therefore triggering an interest liability
on either the State or the Federal Government. Current regulations do
not reflect the CMIA requirement that supplementary payment funds be
transferred to SSA on the date of average clearance of SSI/
supplementary payments, nor do they authorize the charging or payment
of interest by either SSA or the States with regard to the transfer of
State supplementary payment funds.
Proposed Policy
We propose to amend the regulations at Secs. 416.2010(b) and
416.2090 to reflect the provisions section 13731 of Public Law 103-66
that require SSA to charge States an administrative fee for
administering their State supplementary payments and authorize SSA to
charge States an additional services fee for services not customarily
performed. Examples of services not customarily provided States and
thus, for which an additional fee will be charged if SSA agrees to
perform them, are presented below. The list is not intended to be
inclusive. Any and all additional services performed by SSA at the
request of a State will be subject to the services fee, including:
The collection and/or verification of additional
information in the claims or redetermination process which SSA does not
now typically or usually collect and/or verify;
The modification of a supplementary payment level
variation or replacement of a supplementary payment level variation,
resulting in a variation more labor intensive or otherwise more costly
to administer than variations normally administered by SSA;
The modification or expansion of the existing SSI Quality
Assurance sample that would increase the level of reporting usually
performed by SSA;
The development and issuance of notices to SSI/State
supplementary payment recipients in the State beyond those normally
provided;
The revision of State supplementary payment amounts which
requires software changes in the SSI payment system not otherwise
necessary. Such revisions would be other than the customary revisions
associated with annual cost-of-living adjustments to the Federal
benefit rate;
The provision of more detailed or frequent accounting data
or reports; and
A service that would require SSA to engage in software
development or modification and/or reprogramming efforts not normally
undertaken.
We also propose to amend the regulations at Sec. 416.2090(a)(2) to
[[Page 18531]]
provide, consistent with our present procedure, that all State funds to
be used by SSA to make monthly supplementary payments and to pay
administration fees for that month, as estimated by SSA, must be on
deposit with SSA by the fifth Federal business day following the day
the regularly recurring monthly supplementary payments are issued. This
paragraph would also provide that any additional services fees are to
be on deposit with SSA on the date specified by SSA. In addition, we
propose to amend Sec. 416.2090(b) to clarify that administration and
additional services fees are included in SSA's accounting of State
funds and to reflect the fact that SSA and the States may now incur
interest charges with respect to the adjustment and accounting of State
supplementary payment funds in accordance with the CMIA and
implementing regulations of the United States Department of the
Treasury.
We also propose to make technical revisions to the regulations in
Subpart T that are unrelated to the provisions of OBRA of 1993 and the
CMIA. Section 184 of Public Law 97-248, enacted September 3, 1982,
phased out the hold-harmless provisions of the Social Security Act. In
order to reflect the fact that these provisions are now obsolete, we
propose to delete the hold-harmless regulations at Secs. 416.2010(b)
(except for the last sentence which is unrelated to the hold-harmless
protection and which will be inserted at the end of Secs. 416.2005(d)),
416.2080, 416.2082, and 416.2085 per SSA's June 1, 1995, report to
President Clinton on Eliminating and Improving Regulations, and to
amend the regulations at Secs. 416.2050(b)(1) and 416.2090 (a)(2) and
(d). Section 416.2010(d) will be redesignated as Sec. 416.2010(c) and
will be revised to indicate that agreements will renew automatically
one year after the date they are signed for a period of one year unless
the State or SSA gives written notice not to renew at least 90 days
before the beginning of the new period. The regulations now provide
that the agreements will run until June 30, the Federal government's
former end of a fiscal year. This proposed change takes into
consideration the fact that States have not signed their agreements on
one uniform date. Finally, these proposed rules would, in the sections
being amended, replace all references to the Secretary of Health and
Human Services with references to SSA to reflect Public Law 103-296
which, effective March 31, 1995, established SSA as an independent
agency separate from the Department of Health and Human Services.
Regulatory Procedures
Executive Order 12866
We have consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
and determined that these rules do not meet the criteria for a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Thus, they
were not subject to OMB review.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
We certify that these proposed rules will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a
regulatory flexibility analysis as provided in Public Law 96-354, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, is not required.
Paperwork Reduction Act
These proposed rules impose no reporting/recordkeeping requirements
subject to OMB clearance.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 96.006,
Supplemental Security Income)
List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 416
Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Blind, Disability
benefits, Public assistance programs, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Supplemental security income.
Dated: April 16, 1996.
Shirley Chater,
Commissioner of Social Security.
Subpart T of part 416 of chapter III of title 20 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 416 --[AMENDED]
Subpart T--[Amended]
1. The authority citation for subpart T of part 416 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1616, 1618, and 1631 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1382e, 1382g, and 1383); sec.
212, Pub. L. 93-66, 87 Stat. 155 (42 U.S.C. 1382 note); sec. 8(a),
(b)(1)-(b)(3), Pub. L. 93-233, 87 Stat. 956 (7 U.S.C. 612c note and
1431 note and 42 U.S.C. 1382e note); secs. 1(a)-(c) and 2(a),
2(b)(1), 2(b)(2), Pub. L. 93-335, 88 Stat. 291 (42 U.S.C. 1382 note,
1382e note).
2. Section 416.2005 is amended by revising paragraph (a), removing
``the Secretary'' and adding ``SSA'' in the heading and each time it
appears in paragraphs (b)-(d) and adding a sentence to the end of
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 416.2005 Administration agreements with SSA.
(a) Agreement-mandatory only. Subject to the provisions of
paragraph (d) of this section, any State having an agreement with the
Social Security Administration (SSA) under Sec. 416.2001(c) may enter
into an administration agreement with SSA under which SSA will make the
mandatory minimum supplementary payments on behalf of such State. An
agreement under Sec. 416.2001(c) and an administration agreement under
this paragraph may be consolidated into one agreement.
* * * * *
(d) * * * If the State elects options available under this subpart
(specified in Secs. 416.2015 through 416.2035), such options must be
specified in the administration agreement.
3. Section 416.2010 is amended by removing paragraph (b),
redesignating paragraphs (c) through (f) as paragraphs (b) through (e),
removing ``the Secretary'' and adding ``SSA'' each time it appears in
paragraphs (a), (d) and (e), and by revising redesignated paragraphs
(b) and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 416.2010 Essentials of the administration agreements.
* * * * *
(b) Administrative costs. (1) SSA shall assess each State that had
elected Federal administration of optional and/or mandatory State
supplementary payments an administration fee for administering those
payments. The administration fee is assessed and paid monthly and is
derived by multiplying the number of State supplementary payments made
by SSA on behalf of a State for any month in a fiscal year by the
applicable dollar rate for the fiscal year. The number of supplementary
payments made by SSA in a month is the total number of checks issued
and direct deposits made to recipients in that month, that are composed
in whole or in part of State supplementary funds. The dollar rates are
as follows:
(i) For fiscal year 1994, $1.67;
(ii) For fiscal year 1995, $3.33;
(iii) For fiscal year 1996, $5.00; and
(iv) For fiscal year 1997 and each succeeding fiscal year, $5.00,
or such different rate as determined by SSA to be appropriate for any
particular State, taking into account the complexity of administering
the State's supplementary payment program.
(2) SSA shall charge a State an additional services fee if, at the
request of the State, SSA agrees to provide the State with additional
services beyond the level customarily provided in the administration of
State supplementary
[[Page 18532]]
payments. The additional services fee shall be in an amount that SSA
determines is necessary to cover all costs, including indirect costs,
incurred by the Federal government in furnishing the additional
services. SSA is not required to perform any additional services
requested by a State and may, at its sole discretion, refuse to perform
those additional services. An additional services fee charged a State
may be a one-time charge or, if the furnished services result in
ongoing costs to the Federal Government, a monthly or less frequent
charge to the State for providing such services.
(c) Agreement period. The agreement period for a State which has
elected Federal administration of its supplementary payments will
extend for one year from the date the agreement was signed unless
otherwise designated. The agreement will be automatically renewed for a
period of one year unless either the State or SSA gives written notice
not to renew, at least 90 days before the beginning of the new period.
For a State to elect Federal administration, it must notify SSA of its
intent to enter into an agreement, furnishing the necessary payment
specifications, at least 120 days before the first day of the month for
which it wishes Federal administration to begin, and have executed such
agreement at least 30 days before such day.
* * * * *
4. Paragraph (b)(1) of section 416.2050 is amended by removing the
phrase ``(as defined in Sec. 416.2085(e))'' and removing ``the
Secretary'' and adding ``SSA'' each time it appears.
Sec. 416.2080 [Removed]
5. Section 416.2080 is removed.
Sec. 416.2082 [Removed]
6. Section 416.2082 is removed.
Sec. 416.2085 [Removed]
7. Section 416.2085 is removed.
8. Section 416.2090 is amended removing ``the Secretary'' and
adding ``SSA'' each time it appears in paragraph (c), by removing the
phrase ``for purposes of Sec. 416.2080'' at the end of paragraph (d),
and by revising the section heading and paragraphs (a) and (b) to read
as follows:
Sec. 416.2090 State funds transferred for supplementary payments.
(a) Payment transfer and adjustment. (1) Any State which has
entered into an agreement with SSA which provides for Federal
administration of such State's supplementary payments shall transfer to
SSA:
(i) An amount of funds equal to SSA's estimate of State
supplementary payments for any month which shall be made by SSA on
behalf of such State;
(ii) An amount of funds equal to SSA's estimate of administration
fees for any such month determined in the manner described in
Sec. 416.2010(b)(1); and
(iii) If applicable, an amount of funds equal to SSA's
determination of the costs incurred by the Federal government in
furnishing additional services for the State as described in
Sec. 416.2010(b)(2).
(2) In order for SSA to make State supplementary payments on behalf
of a State for any month as provided by the agreement, the estimated
amount of State funds referred to in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this
section, necessary to make those payments for the month, together with
the estimated amount of administration fees referred to in paragraph
(a)(1)(ii) of this section, for that month, must be on deposit with SSA
on the State supplementary payment transfer date, which is the fifth
Federal business day following the day in the month that the regularly
recurring monthly supplemental security income payments are issued. The
additional services fee referred to in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this
section, shall be on deposit with SSA on the date specified by SSA. The
amount of State funds paid to SSA for State supplementary payments and
the amount paid for administration fees will be adjusted as necessary
to maintain the balance with State supplementary payments paid out by
SSA on behalf of the State, and administration fees owed to SSA,
respectively.
(b) Accounting of State funds. (1) As soon as feasible, after the
end of each calendar month, SSA will provide the State with a statement
showing, cumulatively, the total amounts paid by SSA on behalf of the
State during the current Federal fiscal year; the fees charged by SSA
to administer such supplementary payments; any additional services fees
charged the State; the State's total liability therefore; and the end-
of-month balance of the State's cash on deposit with SSA.
(2) SSA shall provide an accounting of State funds received as
State supplementary payments, administration fees, and additional
services fees, within three calendar months following the termination
of an agreement under Sec. 416.2005.
(3) Adjustments will be made because of State funds due and payable
or amounts of State funds recovered for calendar months for which the
agreement was in effect. Interest will be incurred by SSA and the
States with respect to the adjustment and accounting of State
supplementary payments funds in accordance with applicable laws and
regulations of the United States Department of the Treasury.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-10058 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4190-29-P
Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude
Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.