issue-1997-05-27•Federal Register proposed rules — 1997-05-27
Federal Register proposed rules — 1997-05-27
issue-1997-05-27Federal Register proposed rules — 1997-05-27Proposed 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. 97-13818 Proposed List of Fisheries for 1998
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 27, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28657-28668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-13818]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 229
[Docket No. 970515117-7117-01; I.D. 050797D]
RIN 0648-AJ85
Proposed List of Fisheries for 1998
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes changes for 1998 to the List of Fisheries
(LOF) required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The proposed
LOF for 1998 reflects new information
[[Page 28658]]
on interactions between commercial fisheries and marine mammals. Under
the MMPA, a commercial fishery is to be placed on the LOF in one of
three categories based upon the level of serious injuries and
mortalities that occur to marine mammals incidental to that fishery.
The LOF informs the public of the level of interactions with marine
mammals in various U.S. commercial fisheries and which fisheries are
subject to certain provisions of the MMPA such as the requirement to
register for Authorization Certificates.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received by August 25,
1997.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Chief, Marine Mammal Division, Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910.
Comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or any other aspect of
the collection of information requirements contained in this proposed
rule should be sent to the above individual and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: NOAA Desk Officer,
Washington, DC 20503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robyn Angliss, Office of Protected
Resources, 301-713-2322; Douglas Beach, Northeast Region, 508-281-9254;
Charles Oravetz, Southeast Region, 813-570-5301; James Lecky, Southwest
Region, 310-980-4015; Brent Norberg, Northwest Region, 206-526-6140;
Steven Zimmerman, Alaska Region, 907-586-7235.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
History of the List of Fisheries
Section 118 of the MMPA, as amended in 1994, requires the annual
publication of a LOF placing all U.S. commercial fisheries into one of
three categories based on the levels of incidental serious injury and
mortality of marine mammals in the fishery. Proposed and final
regulations implementing section 118 of the MMPA were published in 1995
(60 FR 31666, June 17, 1995, and 60 FR 45086, August 30, 1995,
respectively). These regulations replaced those published to implement
the old section 114 and established the procedures NMFS now uses to
manage incidental interactions between marine mammals and U.S.
commercial fisheries.
Definitions of the fishery classification criteria for Category I,
II, and III fisheries are found in the implementing regulations for
section 118 (50 CFR part 229). Because classification of fisheries in
the LOF depends on the definitions of the criteria, the following
explanation of the criteria is provided. Although this information is
available in the preambles to the final rule implementing section 118
(60 FR 45086, August 30, 1995) and to the final LOF for 1996 (60 FR
67063, December 28, 1995), it is repeated here because of the
importance of this information to understanding how fisheries are
classified.
Fishery Classification Criteria
The fishery classification criteria consist of a two-tiered, stock-
specific approach that first addresses the total impact of all
fisheries on each marine mammal stock and then addresses the impact of
individual fisheries on each stock. This approach is based on the rate,
in numbers of animals per year, of serious injuries and mortalities due
to commercial fishing relative to the Potential Biological Removal
(PBR) level for the each marine mammal stock.
Tier 1
If the total annual mortality and serious injury across all
fisheries that interact with a stock is less than or equal to 10
percent of the PBR level of such a stock, then all fisheries
interacting with this stock would be placed in Category III. Otherwise,
these fisheries are subject to the next tier to determine their
classification.
Tier 2--Category I
Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery
is greater than or equal to 50 percent of the PBR level.
Tier 2--Category II
Annual mortality and serious injury in a given fishery is greater
than 1 percent and less than 50 percent of the PBR level.
Tier 2--Category III
Annual mortality and serious injury in a given fishery is less than
or equal to 1 percent of the PBR level.
Tier 1, therefore, considers the cumulative fishery mortality and
serious injury for a particular stock, while Tier 2 considers fishery-
specific mortality for a particular stock. Additional details regarding
how threshold percentages between the categories were determined are
provided in the preamble to the final rule implementing section 118.
Requirements for Vessels Participating in Category I and II Fisheries
The primary functions of the LOF are to inform the public of the
levels of interactions with marine mammals in various commercial
fisheries and to identify fisheries for which efforts to reduce these
interactions may be necessary. In addition, the LOF informs the fishing
industry which fisheries are subject to certain provisions of the MMPA.
Registration
Fishers participating in Category I or II fisheries must be
registered under the MMPA, as required by 50 CFR 229.4. Unless the
Authorization Certificate program for a fishery is integrated and
coordinated with existing fishery license, registration or permit
systems and related programs, fishers must obtain a registration packet
from NMFS and submit the completed registration form and the required
registration fee to the NMFS Regional Office in which their fishery
operates. Normally, NMFS will send the fisher an Authorization
Certificate, program decal, and reporting forms within 60 days of
receiving the registration form and registration fee.
NMFS has successfully integrated registration under the MMPA with
state fishery registration in Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and certain
New England fisheries and is actively pursuing integration with state
fishery registration programs in North Carolina and California. The
benefits of integration with existing programs have included a
reduction or elimination of fees for some commercial fishers, a
reduction in paperwork that must be completed by the fisher, and a
reduction in paperwork that must be completed by NMFS.
Reporting
Vessel owners or operators, or fishers, in the case of non-vessel
fisheries, in Category I, II, or III fisheries must comply with 50 CFR
229.6 and report all incidental mortalities and injuries of marine
mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations to NMFS
Headquarters. ``Injury'' is defined in 50 CFR 229.2 as a wound or other
physical harm. In addition, any animal that ingests fishing gear, or
any animal that is released with fishing gear entangling, trailing or
perforating any part of the body is considered injured and must be
reported. Instructions for submission of reports are found at 50 CFR
229.6(a).
Observers
Fishers participating in Category I and II fisheries are required,
upon request, to accommodate an observer aboard their vessels. Observer
requirements may be found at 50 CFR 229.7.
[[Page 28659]]
Sources of Information Reviewed During Development of the Proposed LOF
for 1997 and 1998
In 1996, few changes were made to the LOF for 1997, because little
new information was available on the level of interaction between
marine mammals and commercial fisheries. Instead, NMFS focused its
analysis for the proposed LOF for 1997 on those fisheries that it
committed to future review in the 1996 LOF. Similarly, the final LOF
for 1997 (62 FR 33; January 2, 1997), focused only on certain fisheries
NMFS had previously identified and used PBR levels from 1995.
In January 1997, NMFS made available draft Stock Assessment Reports
(SARs) for 1996 (62 FR 3005; January 21, 1997). These SARs provide new
estimates of total serious injury and mortality of marine mammals
incidental to commercial fisheries and also provide new estimates of
PBR levels for all U.S. stocks. Because these draft SARs provide the
best available information on both the level of serious injury and
mortality and the PBR levels, the proposed LOF for 1998 will be based
on information provided in these documents. If information in the SARs
changes as a result of public comments or additional review by the
Scientific Review Groups, these updates will be incorporated in the
final LOF for 1998.
Proposed Changes to the LOF
Marine mammal incidental serious injury and mortality information
presented in the draft SARs was reviewed for all observed fisheries to
determine whether proposed changes in fishery classification is
warranted. Other sources of new information, such as documents provided
to Take Reduction Teams, were also reviewed.
No changes to the classification of fisheries currently in the LOF
are proposed in this LOF.
Pursuant to section 118, NMFS is required to determine the number
of participants in each commercial fishery and the marine mammal
species and/or stocks incidentally injured or killed in each fishery.
The last comprehensive table that provided a list of all fisheries, the
numbers of participants, and the interacting species/stocks was
published in the final LOF for 1996 (December 28, 1995, 60 FR 67063).
Because there were few changes to the LOF in 1997 (January 2, 1997, 62
FR 33), a comprehensive table was not published but was made available
to people when requested. Because substantial new information has
become available for construction of this proposed LOF for 1998, NMFS
is now proposing the following changes to the comprehensive table
listing all fisheries:
Changes Resulting From New Draft SARs
Draft SARs for 1996 were made available to the public for review
and comment on January 21, 1997. The table in the LOF that lists all
U.S. commercial fisheries, the numbers of participants in each fishery,
and the marine mammal species and/or stocks incidentally killed or
injured in each fishery was updated to include the following changes
proposed in the draft SARs:
--The Gulf of Alaska stock of harbor seals was proposed to be
designated as strategic.
--The stock formerly known as the Alaska harbor porpoise stock was
proposed to be divided into three stocks: The Southeast Alaska stock,
the Gulf of Alaska stock, and the Bering Sea stock.
--The Cook Inlet stock of beluga whales was proposed to be designated
as strategic.
--The Western North Atlantic stock of white-sided dolphins was proposed
to be designated as non-strategic.
In addition, the draft SARs for Alaska and for the Pacific provided
updates to the numbers of participants in many commercial fisheries
that operate in Alaska and in California, respectively. When possible,
the number of participants provided in the table reflects the number of
active permitholders, rather than the number of permitted fishers, to
better indicate the level of effort in a fishery. An active
permitholder is one that meets the minimum landing requirements under
that permit. Solicitation of Public Comments on Particular Aspects of
Certain Commercial Fisheries.
Since the publication of the final LOF for 1997, certain Take
Reduction Teams and the draft SARs have highlighted two fisheries, the
U.S. mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet and a tuna drift gillnet fishery that
may incur serious injuries or mortalities of marine mammals. NMFS is
interested in soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the
prosecution of these fisheries to aid in determining whether any
changes to the LOF are necessary.
U.S. Mid-Atlantic Coastal Gillnet Fishery: Description of the Fishery
and Level of Incidental Serious Injury and Mortality
The U.S mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery (including, but not
limited to Atlantic croaker, Atlantic mackerel, Atlantic sturgeon,
black drum, bluefish, herring, menhaden, scup, shad, striped bass,
sturgeon, weakfish, white perch, yellow perch, dogfish and monkfish) as
described in the LOF for 1997 (January 2, 1997, 62 FR 33) includes all
gillnet fishing from 72 deg.30' W. long to the North Carolina-South
Carolina border, except for gillnet fisheries in Category III that
occur solely within bays, estuaries and rivers. This fishery was
classified in Category II in the 1996 LOF, based on a level of
incidental mortality and serious injury of mid-Atlantic coastal
bottlenose dolphins determined through examination of stranded animals.
Until 1995, this fishery had been largely unobserved and the only
sources of information on the level of incidental mortality and serious
injury were stranded animals and reports submitted by fishers.
New information on the level of incidental serious injury and
mortality in the U.S. mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery has recently
become available to NMFS. The following describes this new information
and specifically solicits comments on some aspects of this fishery.
Observer Data
The Northeast Fisheries Science Center presented preliminary data
at a recent meeting of the Mid-Atlantic Take Reduction Team that
estimated 192 harbor porpoise were killed annually in the observed
portion of this fishery (NMFS, unpublished data). This estimate is
thought to be a conservative estimate of the total mortality, because
the observer effort was low (< 5 percent) and because fishing effort
was calculated based on landings data obtained from individual state
agencies from New York to North Carolina that may not represent total
fishing effort. This level of incidental take may be more accurate for
the segment of this fishery that targets dogfish and monkfish, because
it is uncertain whether observer coverage in other segments of the
fishery are representative of total fishing effort. The estimated
serious injury and mortality of harbor porpoise in this segment of the
fishery is under 50 percent of the PBR for harbor porpoise; thus,
retaining this fishery in Category II at this time is justifiable based
on extrapolations from the observer data.
Data from Stranded Marine Mammals
Since 1994, data on evidence of fishing interactions from stranded
marine mammals has improved in certain mid-Atlantic states,
particularly North Carolina and Virginia. This improvement in the
available information has resulted from better training of stranding
network volunteers in the recognition of scars and pathology associated
with fishing
[[Page 28660]]
interactions and increases in beach survey and necropsy effort. Two
reports that provide guidelines for determining whether a marine mammal
likely died as a result of fishery interactions have been published in
recent years. These improvements in the stranding network will greatly
enhance the confidence with which NMFS may propose changes in the LOF
based on stranding data alone.
Between 1994 and early March 1997, data were collected from
stranded dead bottlenose dolphins in North Carolina that indicated an
average of 17.9 (58 total interactions divide by 3.25 years) bottlenose
dolphins strand annually with identifiable evidence of fishing
interactions (NMFS, unpublished data). Of these, net marks or attached
gear was found on an average of 10.5 stranded bottlenose dolphins per
year, of which an average of 4 per year had evidence of monofilament
gillnet. The majority of these strandings are of bottlenose dolphins
from the mid-Atlantic coastal stock (NMFS, unpublished data). This
level of incidental mortality (4 stranded bottlenose dolphins per year
with evidence of monofilament gillnet) justifies placement of this
fishery in Category II but not in Category I.
The evidence from stranding data clearly indicates that the mid-
Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphin stock has consistent interactions
with monofilament gillnet fisheries. The majority of the strandings of
bottlenose dolphins (both those with evidence of fishery interactions
and those without evidence of fishery interactions) occur from February
through May in North Carolina. This temporal distribution of strandings
appears to correlate directly with nearshore gillnet effort in state
waters for species such as weakfish and dogfish (NMFS, unpublished
data).
Solicitation of Public Comments
NMFS has two sources of data on the level of serious injury and
mortality in the mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery: (1) Observed
mortalities of harbor porpoise on vessels targeting monkfish and
dogfish; and (2) evidence from bottlenose dolphin strandings that were
likely caused by interactions with gillnet vessels. NMFS currently
cannot use these data sources to evaluate takes in the entire U.S. mid-
Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery, as it is currently defined, because
the data sources appear to reflect interactions of different species in
different segments of the fishery. NMFS specifically solicits public
comments on the following:
--Whether it is appropriate to divide the U.S. mid-Atlantic coastal
gillnet fishery into different components.
--If it is appropriate to separate the U.S. mid-Atlantic coastal
gillnet fishery into different components, what criteria should be used
to make that separation.
--In addition, NMFS seeks other relevant information from the public
including specific geographic and temporal distribution of nearshore
gillnet fisheries, including target species and type of gear used
(e.g., mesh size, twine diameter).
U.S. Mid-Atlantic Tuna Drift Gillnet
NMFS has received reports that a new fishery using drift gillnet to
target tuna may operate in U.S. mid-Atlantic waters between New Jersey
and Virginia. Reports indicate that this fishery targets primarily
yellowfin and albacore tunas using a mesh size smaller than that
typically used in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico
large pelagics drift gillnet fishery. Because these reports are
unsubstantiated to date, NMFS specifically solicits information on the
following:
--The specific geographic location of the fishery.
--The type of gear, target species, and specific methods of fishing.
--Marine mammal species/stocks that are injured or killed incidental to
this fishery.
--The number of participants in this fishery.
--In addition, NMFS seeks public comment on whether this fishery should
be considered part of another fishery or a separate fishery.
Information provided on these issues may be used to determine
whether this is an active fishery that should be included on the final
LOF for 1998.
List of Fisheries
The following two tables list the commercial fisheries of the
United States according to their assigned categories under Section 118.
The estimated number of vessels is expressed in terms of the number of
active participants in the fishery, when possible. If this information
is not available, the estimated number of vessels or persons licensed
for a particular fishery is provided. If no recent information is
available on the number of participants in a fishery, the number from
the 1996 LOF is used. The information on which marine mammal species/
stocks are involved is based on observer data, logbook data, stranding
reports, and fisher's reports. Only those species or stocks known to
incur injury or mortality are listed. There are a few fisheries that
are in Category II and have no recent documented interactions with
marine mammals. Justifications for placement of these fisheries are
found in the final LOF for 1996 (December 28, 1995; 60 FR 45086).
An asterisk (*) indicates that the stock is a strategic stock; a
plus (+) indicates that the stock is listed as threatened or endangered
under the Endangered Species Act.
Table 1.--List of Fisheries
[Commercial Fisheries in the Pacific Ocean]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated number Marine mammal species/
Fishery description of vessels/ stocks incidentally
persons injured/killed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category I:
Gillnet fisheries:
CA angel shark/halibut and 58............... Harbor porpoise,
other species large mesh central CA.
(>3.5in) set gillnet Common dolphin, short-
fishery. beaked, CA/OR/WA.
Common dolphin, long-
beaked CA.
California sea lion,
U.S.
Harbor seal, CA.
Northern elephant
seal, CA breeding.
[[Page 28661]]
CA/OR thresher shark/ 130.............. Steller sea lion,
swordfish drift gillnet Eastern U.S.*+
fishery. Sperm whale, CA to
WA.*+
Dall's porpoise, CA/
OR/WA.
Pacific white sided
dolphin, CA/OR/WA.
Risso's dolphin, CA/
OR/WA.
Bottlenose dolphin,
CA/OR/WA offshore.
Common dolphin, short-
beaked, CA/OR/WA.
Common dolphin, long-
beaked, CA.
Northern right whale
dolphin, CA/OR/WA.
Short-finned pilot
whale, CA/OR/WA.*
Baird's beaked whale,
CA/OR/WA.
Mesoplodont beaked
whales, CA to WA.*
Cuvier's beaked
whale, CA/OR/WA.
Pygmy sperm whale, CA/
OR/WA.*
California sea lion,
U.S.
Harbor seal, CA.
Northern elephant
seal, CA breeding.
Harbor porpoise, OR/
WA coastal.
Humpback whale, CA/OR/
WA-Mexico.
Minke whale, CA/OR/
WA.*
Category II:
Gillnet fisheries:
AK Prince William Sound 518.............. Steller sea lion,
salmon drift gillnet. Western U.S.*+
Northern fur seal,
North Pacific.*
Harbor seal, GOA.*
Pacific white-sided
dolphin, central.
North Pacific.
Harbor porpoise, GOA.
Dall's porpoise, AK.
AK Peninsula/Aleutians 164.............. Northern fur seal,
salmon drift gillnet North Pacific.
fishery. Harbor seal, GOA.
Harbor seal, Bering
Sea.
Harbor porpoise,
Bering Sea.
Dall's porpoise, AK.
Northern (Alaska) sea
otter, Pacific.
AK Peninsula/Aleutian 109.............. Steller sea lion,
Island salmon set gillnet. Western U.S.*+
Harbor porpoise,
Bering Sea.
Southeast Alaska salmon 452.............. Steller sea lion,
drift gillnet fishery. Eastern U.S.* +
Harbor seal,
Southeast AK.
Pacific white-sided
dolphin, central
North Pacific.
Harbor porpoise,
Southeast Alaska.
Dall's porpoise, AK.
Humpback whale,
central North
Pacific.* +
AK Cook Inlet drift 577.............. Steller sea lion,
gillnet. Western U.S.* +
Harbor seal, GOA.*
Harbor porpoise, GOA.
Dall's porpoise, AK.
AK Cook Inlet salmon set 625.............. Steller sea lion,
gillnet. Western U.S.* +
Harbor seal, GOA.*
Harbor porpoise, GOA.
Beluga, Cook Inlet.*
AK Yakutat salmon set 147.............. Harbor seal,
gillnet. Southeast AK.
AK Kodiak salmon set 173.............. Harbor seal, GOA.*
gillnet. Harbor porpoise, GOA.
AK Bristol Bay drift 1,882............ Steller sea lion,
gillnet. Western U.S.* +
Northern fur seal,
North Pacific.*
Harbor seal, Bering
Sea.
Beluga, Bristol Bay.
Gray whale, Eastern
North Pacific.
Spotted seal, AK.
Pacific white-sided
dolphin, central.
North Pacific.
AK Bristol Bay set gillnet 967.............. Harbor seal, Bering
Sea.
Beluga, Bristol Bay.
Gray whale, Eastern
North Pacific.
Northern fur seal,
North Pacific.
AK Metlakatla/Annette 60............... None documented.
Island salmon drift
gillnet.
[[Page 28662]]
WA Puget Sound Region 900.............. Harbor porpoise,
salmon drift gillnet inland WA.
fishery (includes all Dall's porpoise, CA/
inland waters south of OR/WA.
U.S.-Canada border and Harbor seal, WA
eastward of the Bonilla- inland.
Tatoosh line--Treaty
Indian fishing is
excluded).
Purse seine fisheries:
CA anchovy, mackerel, tuna 150.............. Bottlenose dolphin,
purse seine. CA/OR/WA offshore.
California sea lion,
U.S.
Harbor seal, CA.
CA squid purse seine...... 65............... Pilot whales, short-
finned, CA/OR/WA.
AK Southeast salmon purse 373.............. Humpback whale,
seine. central North
Pacific.* +
Trawl fisheries:
AK pair trawl............. 2................ None documented.
Longline fisheries:
OR swordfish floating 2................ None documented.
longline fishery.
OR blue shark floating 1................ None documented.
longline fishery.
Category III:
Gillnet fisheries:
AK Prince William Sound 22............... Steller sea lion,
set gillnet. Western U.S.* +
Harbor seal, GOA.*
AK Kuskokwim, Yukon, 1,690............ None documented.
Norton Sound, Kotzebue
salmon gillnet.
AK roe herring and food/ 16............... None documented.
bait herring gillnet.
WA, OR herring, smelt, 913.............. None documented.
shad, sturgeon, bottom
fish, mullet, perch,
rockfish gillnet.
WA Willapa Bay drift 82............... Harbor seal, OR/WA
gillnet. coast.
Northern elephant
seal, CA breeding.
WA Grays Harbor salmon 24............... Harbor seal, OR/WA
drift gillnet (excluding coast.
treaty Tribal fishing).
WA, OR lower Columbia 110.............. California sea lion,
River (includes U.S.
tributaries) drift Harbor seal, OR/WA
gillnet. coast.
CA set and drift gillnet 341.............. None documented.
fisheries that use a
stretched mesh size of
3.5 in or less.
AK miscellaneous finfish 9................ Steller sea lion,
set gillnet. Western U.S.* +
Hawaii gillnet............ 115.............. Bottlenose dolphin,
Hawaiian.
Spinner dolphin,
Hawaiian.
Purse seine, beach seine,
round haul and throw net
fisherie:
AK salmon purse seine 763.............. Harbor seal, GOA.*
(except Southeast Alaska,
which is in Category II).
AK salmon beach seine..... 8................ None documented.
AK roe herring and food/ 480.............. None documented.
bait herring purse seine.
AK roe herring and food/ 7................ None documented.
bait herring beach seine.
AK Metlakatla purse seine. 10............... None documented.
AK octopus/squid purse 6................ None documented.
seine.
CA herring purse seine.... 100.............. Bottlenose dolphin,
CA coastal.
California sea lion,
U.S.
Harbor seal, CA.
CA sardine purse seine.... 120.............. None documented.
CA squid purse seine...... 145.............. California sea lion,
U.S.
AK miscellaneous finfish 7................ None documented.
purse seine.
AK miscellaneous finfish 1................ None documented.
beach seine.
WA salmon purse seine..... 440.............. None documented.
WA salmon reef net........ 53............... None documented.
WA, OR herring, smelt, 130.............. None documented.
squid purse seine or
lampara.
WA (all species) beach 235.............. None documented.
seine or drag seine.
HI purse seine............ 18............... None documented.
HI opelu/akule net........ 16............... None documented.
HI throw net, cast net.... 47............... None documented.
Dip net fisheries:
WA, OR smelt, herring dip 119.............. None documented.
net.
CA squid dip net.......... 115.............. None documented.
Marine aquaculture fisheries:
WA, OR salmon net pens.... 21............... California sea lion,
U.S.
CA salmon enhancement >1............... None documented.
rearing pen.
OR salmon ranch........... 1................ None documented.
Troll fisheries:
AK salmon troll........... 1,278............ Steller sea lion,
Eastern U.S.*+
CA/OR/WA salmon troll..... 4,300............ None documented.
[[Page 28663]]
AK north Pacific halibut, 1,354............ None documented.
AK bottom fish, WA, OR,
CA albacore, groundfish,
bottom fish, CA halibut
non-salmonid troll
fisheries.
HI trolling, rod and reel. 1,795............ None documented.
Guam tuna troll........... 50............... None documented.
Commonwealth of the 50............... None documented.
Northern Mariana Islands
tuna troll.
American Samoa tuna troll. <50.............. None documented.
HI net unclassified....... 106.............. None documented.
Longline/set line fisheries:
AK state waters sablefish 240.............. None documented.
long line/set line.
Miscellaneous finfish/ 1,220............ Harbor seal, GOA.*
groundfish longline/set Harbor seal, Bering
line. Sea.
Northern elephant
seal, CA breeding.
Dall's porpoise, AK.
Steller sea lion,
Western U.S.
Harbor seal,
Southeast AK.
HI swordfish, tuna, 140.............. Hawaiian monk seal,
billfish, mahi mahi, HI.*+
wahoo, oceanic sharks Humpback whale,
longline/set line. Central North
Pacific.*+
Risso's dolphin,
Hawaiian.
Bottlenose dolphin,
Hawaiian.
WA, OR North Pacific 350.............. None documented.
halibut longline/set line.
AK southern Bering Sea, 226.............. Northern elephant
Aleutian Islands, and seal, CA breeding.
Western Gulf of Alaska Killer whale,
sablefish longline/set resident.
line (federally regulated Killer whale,
waters). transient.
Steller sea lion,
western U.S.
Pacific white-sided
dolphin, central
North Pacific.
AK halibut longline/set 2,396............ Steller sea lion,
line (state and Federal Western U.S.*+
waters).
WA, OR, CA groundfish, 367.............. None documented.
bottomfish longline/set
line.
AK octopus/squid longline. 2................ None documented.
CA shark/bonito longline/ 10............... None documented.
set line.
Trawl fisheries:
WA, OR, CA shrimp trawl... 300.............. None documented.
AK shrimp otter trawl and 48............... None documented.
beam trawl (statewide and
Cook Inlet).
AK Gulf of Alaska 209.............. Steller sea lion,
groundfish trawl. Western U.S.*+
Northern fur seal,
North Pacific.*
Harbor seal, GOA.*
Dall's porpoise, AK.
Northern elephant
seal, CA breeding.
AK Bering Sea and Aleutian 186.............. Steller sea lion,
Islands groundfish trawl. Western U.S.*+
Northern fur seal,
North Pacific.*
Killer whale,
resident.
Killer whale,
transient.
Pacific white-sided
dolphin, central
North Pacific.
Harbor porpoise,
Bering Sea.
Harbor seal, Bering
Sea.
Harbor seal, GOA.*
Bearded seal, AK.
Ringed seal, AK.
Dall's porpoise, AK.
Ribbon seal, AK.
Northern elephant
seal, CA breeding.
Northern (Alaska) sea
otter, Pacific.
Walrus, Pacific.
AK state-managed waters of 8................ None documented.
Cook Inlet, Kachemak Bay,
Prince William Sound,
Southeast AK groundfish
trawl.
AK miscellaneous finfish 391.............. None documented.
otter or beam trawl.
AK food/bait herring trawl 3................ None documented.
WA, OR, CA groundfish 585.............. Steller sea lion,
trawl. Western U.S.*+
Northern fur seal,
North Pacific.*
Pacific white-sided
dolphin, central
North Pacific.
Dall's porpoise, CA/
OR/WA.
California sea lion,
U.S.
Harbor seal, OR/WA
coast.
Pot, ring net, and trap
fisheries:
AK crustacean pot......... 1,511............ None documented.
[[Page 28664]]
AK Bering Sea, GOA finfish 486.............. Harbor seal, GOA.*
pot. Harbor seal, Bering
Sea.
Northern (AK) sea
otter, Pacific.
WA, OR, CA sablefish pot.. 176.............. None documented.
WA, OR, CA crab pot....... 1,478............ None documented.
WA, OR shrimp pot & trap.. 254.............. None documented.
CA lobster, prawn, shrimp, 608.............. None documented.
rock crab, fish pot.
OR, CA hagfish pot or trap 25............... None documented.
HI lobster trap........... 15............... Hawaiian monk seal,
HI.*+
HI crab trap.............. 22............... None documented.
HI fish trap.............. 19............... None documented.
HI shrimp trap............ 5................ None documented.
Handline and jig fisheries: ................. .....................
AK North Pacific halibut 119.............. None documented.
handline and mechanical
jig.
AK other finfish handline 598.............. None documented.
and mechanical jig.
AK octopus/squid handline. 2................ None documented.
WA groundfish, bottomfish 679.............. None documented.
jig.
HI aku boat, pole and line 54............... None documented.
HI inshore handline....... 650.............. Bottlenose dolphin,
HI.
HI deep sea bottomfish.... 434.............. Hawaiian monk seal,
HI.*+
HI tuna................... 144.............. Rough-toothed
dolphin, HI.
Bottlenose dolphin,
HI.
Hawaiian monk seal,
HI.*+
Guam bottomfish........... < 50............. None documented.
Commonwealth of the <50.............. None documented.
Northern Mariana Islands
bottomfish.
American Samoa bottomfish. <50.............. None documented.
Harpoon fisheries: ................. .....................
CA swordfish harpoon...... 228.............. None documented.
Pound net/weir fisheries:
AK Southeast Alaska 4................ None documented.
herring food/bait pound
net.
WA herring brush weir..... 1................ None documented.
Bait pens:
WA/OR/CA bait pens........ 13............... None documented.
Dredge fisheries:
Coastwide scallop dredge.. 106.............. None documented.
Dive, hand/mechanical
collection fisheries:
AK abalone................ 44............... None documented.
AK dungeness crab......... 2................ None documented.
AK herring spawn-on-kelp.. 314.............. None documented.
AK urchin and other fish/ 17............... None documented.
shellfish.
AK clam hand shovel....... 53............... None documented.
AK clam mechanical/ 104.............. None documented.
hydraulic fishery.
WA herring spawn-on-kelp.. 4................ None documented.
WA/OR sea urchin, other 637.............. None documented.
clam, octopus, oyster,
sea cucumber, scallop,
ghost shrimp hand, dive,
or mechanical collection.
CA abalone................ 111.............. None documented.
CA sea urchin............. 583.............. None documented.
HI squiding, spear........ 267.............. None documented.
HI lobster diving......... 6................ None documented.
HI coral diving........... 2................ None documented.
HI handpick............... 135.............. None documented.
WA shellfish aquaculture. 684.............. None documented.
WA, CA kelp............... 4................ None documented.
HI fish pond.............. 10............... None documented.
Commercial passenger fishing
vessel (charter boat)
fisheries:
AK, WA, OR, CA commercial >17,000 (16,276 None documented.
passenger fishing vessel. AK only).
AK octopus/squid ``other'' 19............... None documented.
HI ``other''.............. 114.............. None documented.
Live finfish/shellfish
fisheries:
CA finfish and shellfish 93............... None documented.
live trap/hook-and-line.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Marine mammal stock is strategic.
+ Stock is listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, or as
depleted under the MMPA, or is proposed to be listed as strategic in
the draft SARs for 1996.
[[Page 28665]]
List of Abbreviations Used in Table 1
AK--Alaska
CA--California
HI--Hawaii
GOA--Gulf of Alaska
OR--Oregon
WA--Washington
Table 2.--List of Fisheries
[Commercial Fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and
Caribbean]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated number Marine mammal species/
Description of fishery of vessels/ stocks incidentally
persons injured/killed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category I:
Gillnet fisheries:
Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, 15............... North Atlantic right
Gulf of Mexico large whale, WNA.*+
pelagics drift gillnet. Humpback whale,
WNA.*+
Sperm whale, WNA.*+
Dwarf sperm whale,
WNA.*
Pygmy sperm whale,
WNA.*
Cuvier's beaked
whale, WNA.*
True's beaked whale,
WNA.*
Gervais' beaked
whale, WNA.*
Blainville's beaked
whale, WNA.*
Risso's dolphin, WNA.
Long-finned pilot
whale, WNA.*
Short-finned pilot
whale, WNA.*
White-sided dolphin,
WNA.
Common dolphin, WNA.*
Atlantic spotted
dolphin, WNA.*
Pantropical spotted
dolphin, WNA.*
Striped dolphin, WNA.
Spinner dolphin, WNA.
Bottlenose dolphin,
WNA offshore.*
Harbor porpoise, GME/
BF.*
Northeast multispecies 341.............. North Atlantic right
sink gillnet (including whale, WNA.*+
species as defined in the Humpback whale,
Multispecies Fisheries WNA.*+
Management Plan and spiny Minke whale, Canadian
dogfish and monkfish). east coast.
Killer whale, WNA.
White-sided dolphin,
WNA.
Striped dolphin, WNA.
Bottlenose dolphin,
WNA offshore.
Harbor porpoise, GME/
BF.*
Harbor seal, WNA.
Gray seal, Northwest
North Atlantic.
Common dolphin.
Fin whale.
Spotted dolphin.
False killer whale.
Harp seal.
Longline fisheries:
Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, 361.............. Humpback whale,
Gulf of Mexico large WNA.*+
pelagics longline. Minke whale, Canadian
east coast.
Risso's dolphin, WNA.
Long-finned pilot
whale, WNA.*
Short-finned pilot
whale, WNA.*
Common dolphin, WNA.*
Atlantic spotted
dolphin, WNA.*
Pantropical spotted
dolphin, WNA.
Striped dolphin, WNA.
Bottlenose dolphin,
WNA offshore.*
Bottlenose dolphin,
GMX Outer
Continental Shelf.
Bottlenose dolphin,
GMX Continental
Shelf Edge and
Slope.
Atlantic spotted
dolphin, Northern
GMX.
Pantropical spotted
dolphin, Northern
GMX.
Risso's dolphin,
Northern GMX.
Harbor porpoise, GME/
BF.*
Trap/pot fisheries--lobster:
Gulf of Maine, U.S. mid- 13,000........... North Atlantic right
Atlantic lobster trap/pot. whale, WNA.*+
Humpback whale,
WNA.*+
Fin whale, WNA.*
Minke whale, Canadian
east coast.
White-sided dolphin,
WNA.
Harbor seal, WNA.
[[Page 28666]]
Category II:
Gillnet fisheries:
U.S. mid-Atlantic coastal >655............. Humpback whale,
gillnet fishery. WNA.*+
Minke whale, Canadian
east coast.
Bottlenose dolphin,
WNA offshore.*
Bottlenose dolphin,
WNA coastal.*+
Harbor porpoise, GME/
BF.*
Gulf of Maine small 133.............. Humpback whale,
pelagics surface gillnet. WNA.*+
White-sided dolphin,
WNA.
Harbor seal, WNA.
Southeastern U.S. Atlantic 10............... Bottlenose dolphin,
shark gillnet fishery. WNA coastal.*
North Atlantic right
whale, WNA.*+
Trawl fisheries:
Atlantic squid, mackerel, 620.............. Common dolphin, WNA.*
butterfish trawl. Risso's dolphin,
WNA.*
Long-finned pilot
whale, WNA.*
Short-finned pilot
whale, WNA.*
White-sided dolphin,
WNA.
Haul seine fisheries:
North Carolina haul seine. unknown.......... Bottlenose dolphin,
WNA coastal.*
Harbor porpoise, GME/
BF.*
Stop net fisheries:
North Carolina roe mullet 13............... Bottlenose dolphin,
stop net. WNA coastal.*
Category III:
Gillnet fisheries:
Rhode Island, southern 32............... Humpback whale,
Massachusetts (to Monomoy WNA.*+
Island), and New York Bottlenose dolphin,
Bight (Raritan and Lower WNA coastal.*+
New York Bays) inshore Harbor porpoise, GME/
gillnet. BF.*
Long Island Sound inshore 20............... Humpback whale,
gillnet. WNA.*+
Bottlenose dolphin,
WNA coastal.*+
Harbor porpoise, GME/
BF.*
Delaware Bay inshore 60............... Humpback whale,
gillnet. WNA.*+
Bottlenose dolphin,
WNA coastal.*+
Harbor porpoise, GME/
BF.*
Chesapeake Bay inshore 45............... None documented.
gillnet.
North Carolina inshore 94............... None documented.
gillnet.
Gulf of Mexico inshore Unknown.......... None documented.
gillnet (black drum,
sheepshead, weakfish,
mullet, spot, croaker).
Gulf of Maine, Southeast 1,285............ Minke whale, Canadian
U.S. Atlantic coastal east coast.
shad, sturgeon gillnet Harbor porpoise, GME/
(includes waters of North BF.*
Carolina). Bottlenose dolphin,
WNA coastal.*+
Gulf of Mexico coastal Unknown.......... Bottlenose dolphin,
gillnet (includes mullet Western GMX coastal.
gillnet fishery in LA and Bottlenose dolphin,
MS). Northern GMX
coastal.
Bottlenose dolphin,
Eastern GMX coastal.
Bottlenose dolphin,
GMX Bay, Sound, &
Estuarine.*
Southeastern U.S. Atlantic Unknown.......... Bottlenose dolphin,
coastal gillnet. WNA coastal.*+
Florida east coast, Gulf 271.............. Bottlenose dolphin,
of Mexico pelagics king Western GMX coastal.
and Spanish mackerel Bottlenose dolphin,
gillnet. Northern GMX
coastal.
Bottlenose dolphin,
Eastern GMX coastal.
Bottlenose dolphin,
GMX Bay, Sound, &
Estuarine.*
Trawl fisheries:
North Atlantic bottom 1,052............ Long-finned pilot
trawl. whale, WNA.*
Short-finned pilot
whale, WNA.*
White-sided dolphin,
WNA.
Striped dolphin, WNA.
Bottlenose dolphin,
WNA offshore.*
Mid-Atlantic, Southeastern >18,000.......... Bottlenose dolphin,
U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of WNA coastal.*+
Mexico shrimp trawl.
Gulf of Maine northern 320.............. None documented.
shrimp trawl.
Gulf of Maine, Mid- 215.............. None documented.
Atlantic sea scallop
trawl.
Gulf of Maine, Southern 5................ None documented.
North Atlantic, Gulf of
Mexico coastal herring
trawl.
Mid-Atlantic mixed species >1,000........... None documented.
trawl.
Gulf of Mexico butterfish 2................ Atlantic spotted
trawl. dolphin, Northern
GMX.
Pantropical spotted
dolphin, Northern
GMX.
Georgia, South Carolina, 25............... None documented.
Maryland whelk trawl.
Calico scallops trawl..... 200.............. None documented.
Bluefish, croaker, 550.............. None documented.
flounder trawl.
[[Page 28667]]
Crab trawl................ 400.............. None documented.
U.S. Atlantic monkfish Unknown.......... Common dolphins,
trawl. WNA.*
Marine aquaculture fisheries:
Finfish aquaculture....... 48............... Harbor seals, WNA.
Shellfish aquaculture..... Unknown.......... None documented.
Purse seine fisheries:
Gulf of Maine Atlantic 30............... Harbor porpoise, GME/
herring purse seine. BF.*
Harbor seal, WNA.
Gray seal, Northwest
North Atlantic.
Mid-Atlantic menhaden 22............... Bottlenose dolphin,
purse seine. WNA coastal.*+
Gulf of Maine menhaden 50............... None documented.
purse seine.
Gulf of Mexico menhaden 50............... Bottlenose dolphin,
purse seine. Northern GMX
coastal.
Florida west coast sardine 10............... Bottlenose dolphin,
purse seine. Eastern GMX coastal.
U.S. Atlantic tuna purse Unknown.......... None documented.
seine.
U.S. mid-Atlantic hand > 250............ None documented.
seine.
Longline/hook-and-line
fisheries:
Gulf of Maine tub trawl 46............... Harbor seal, WNA.
groundfish bottom Gray seal, Northwest
longline/hook-and-line. North Atlantic.
Southeastern U.S. 3,800............ None documented.
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico
snapper-grouper and other
reef fish bottom longline/
hook-and-line.
Southeastern U.S. 124.............. None documented.
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico
shark bottom longline/
hook-and-line.
Gulf of Maine, U.S. mid- 26,223........... None documented.
Atlantic tuna, shark
swordfish hook-and-line/
harpoon.
Southeastern U.S. 1,446............ None documented.
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico
& U.S. mid-Atlantic
pelagic hook-and-line/
harpoon.
Trap/pot fisheries--lobster
and crab:
Gulf of Maine, U.S. mid- 100.............. North Atlantic right
Atlantic mixed species whale, WNA.*+
trap/pot. Humpback whale,
WNA.*+
Minke whale, Canadian
east coast.
Harbor porpoise, GME/
BF.*
Harbor seal, WNA.
Gray seal, Northwest
North Atlantic.
U.S. mid-Atlantic and 30............... None documented.
Southeast U.S. Atlantic
black sea bass trap/pot.
U.S. mid-Atlantic eel trap/ >700............. None documented.
pot.
Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of 20,500........... Bottlenose dolphin,
Mexico blue crab trap/pot. WNA coastal.*
Bottlenose dolphin,
Western GMX coastal.
Bottlenose dolphin,
Northern GMX
coastal.
Bottlenose dolphin,
Eastern GMX coastal.
Bottlenose dolphin,
GMX Bay, Sound, &
Estuarine.*
West Indian manatee,
FL.*+
Southeastern U.S. 750.............. West Indian manatee,
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, FL.*+
Caribbean spiny lobster
trap/pot.
Stop seine/weir/pound
fisheries:
Gulf of Maine herring and 50............... North Atlantic right
Atlantic mackerel stop whale, WNA.*
seine/weir. Humpback whale,
WNA.*+
Minke whale, Canadian
east coast.
Harbor porpoise, GME/
BF.*
Harbor seal, WNA.
Gray seal, Northwest
North Atlantic.
U.S. mid-Atlantic mixed 500.............. None documented.
species stop/seine/weir
(except the North
Carolina roe mullet stop
net).
U.S. mid-Atlantic crab 2,600............ None documented.
stop seine/weir.
Dredge fisheries:
Gulf of Maine, U.S. mid- 233.............. None documented.
Atlantic sea scallop
dredge.
U.S. mid-Atlantic offshore 100.............. None documented.
surfclam and quahog
dredge.
Gulf of Maine mussel...... > 50............. None documented.
U.S. mid-Atlantic/Gulf of 7,000............ None documented.
Mexico oyster.
Haul seine fisheries:
Southeastern U.S. 150.............. None documented.
Atlantic, Caribbean haul
seine.
Beach seine fisheries:
Caribbean beach seine..... 15............... West Indian manatee,
FL.+
Dive, hand/mechanical
collection fisheries:
Gulf of Maine urchin dive, > 50............. None documented.
hand/mechanical
collection.
Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of 20,000........... None documented.
Mexico, Caribbean
shellfish dive, hand/
mechanical collection.
[[Page 28668]]
Commercial passenger fishing
vessel (charter boat)
fisheries:
Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of 4,000............ None documented.
Mexico, Caribbean
commercial passenger
fishing vessel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Marine mammal stock is strategic
+ Stock is listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, or as
depleted under the MMPA, or is proposed to be listed as strategic in
the draft SARs for 1996.
List of Abbreviations Used in Table 2
FL--Florida
GA--Georgia
GME/BF--Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy
GMX--Gulf of Mexico
NC--North Carolina
SC--South Carolina
TX--Texas
WNA--Western North
Atlantic
Classification
The Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation of the
Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration that this proposed LOF for 1998, if
adopted would not have a signficant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities as follows:
Under existing regulations certain fishers must register, obtain
an Authorization Certificate, and pay a fee of $25. Such a
certificate authorizes the taking of certain marine mammals
incidental to commercial fishing operations. Currently,
approximately 14,000 fishers are registered. Registration of 12,400
fishers has been coordinated with existing state or Federal
registration programs, so only approximately 1,600 fishers must
register separately under this program. This proposed rule, if
adopted, would not require the registration of additional fishers.
The application fee, with respect to expected revenues, is not
considered significant because it represents under 0.01 percent of
the total revenue. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis
was not prepared.
This action proposes changes to the current List of Fisheries
and reflects new information on commercial fisheries, marine mammals
and interactions between commercial fisheries and marine mammals.
This proposed list informs the public which U.S. commercial
fisheries may be required in 1998 to comply with certain parts of
the MMPA including requirements to register for Authorization
Certificates.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of E.O. 12866.
This proposed rule does not contain new collection-of-information
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The collection of information required for reporting of marine
mammal injuries or mortalities to NMFS and for registration of fishers
under the MMPA has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under OMB control numbers 0648-0292 (0.15 hours per report) and
0648-0293 (0.25 hours per registration). Those burdens are not expected
to change significantly if this proposed rule is adopted and may
actually decrease if additional registration system are integrated with
existing programs. Send comments regarding these reporting burden
estimates or any other aspect of the collections of information,
including suggestions for reducing the burdens, to NMFS and OMB (see
ADDRESSES).
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required
to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Dated: May 20, 1997.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 97-13818 Filed 5-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 97-13808 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for a Petition To List the Contiguous United States Population of the Canada Lynx
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 27, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28653-28657]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-13808]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
for a Petition To List the Contiguous United States Population of the
Canada Lynx
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces a 12-month
finding for a petition to list the contiguous United States population
of the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended. After review of all available scientific and
commercial information, the Service finds that listing this population
is warranted but precluded by other higher priority actions to amend
the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and Plants.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on May 21, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Information, comments, or questions concerning this petition
should be submitted to the Field Supervisor, Montana Field Office, Fish
[[Page 28654]]
and Wildlife Service, 100 N. Park Avenue, Suite 320, Helena, Montana
59601. The petition finding, supporting data, and comments are
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kemper McMaster, Field Supervisor, at
the above address, telephone (406) 449-5225.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), requires that, for any petition
to revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants
that contains substantial scientific and commercial information, the
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) make a finding within 12 months of
the date of the receipt of the petition on whether the petitioned
action is (a) not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted but
precluded from immediate proposal by other pending proposals of higher
priority. Section 4(b)(3)(C) requires that petitions for which the
requested action is found to be warranted but precluded should be
treated as though resubmitted on the date of such finding, i.e.,
requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 months.
On April 27, 1994, the Service received a petition from the
Biodiversity Legal Foundation, Evan Frost, Mark Skatrud, Craig Coonrad,
and Michael J. Polly to list the conterminous United States population
of North American lynx (Felis lynx canadensis) as threatened or
endangered. On August 26, 1994, the Service published a notice (59 FR
44123) of a 90-day finding that there was substantial information to
indicate that listing this population may be warranted. On December 27,
1994, the Service published a notice (59 FR 66507) indicating that the
Service's 12-month finding was that listing the Canada lynx in the
contiguous United States was not warranted. On March 27, 1997, a
resulting Court order remanded the 1994 Canada lynx 12-month finding
back to the Service for reconsideration. The information in this notice
is a summary of the information from the Service's reassessed and
updated 12-month finding on a petition to list the contiguous United
States population of Canada lynx, as required by the U.S. District
Court.
The Service has reexamined the information in the 1994
administrative record and new information made available since the 1994
finding, and has consulted experts knowledgeable about Canada lynx. On
the basis of the best scientific and commercial information available,
the Service has determined that Canada lynx in the contiguous United
States constitutes a distinct population segment under the Act. The
Service finds that listing the Canada lynx population in the contiguous
United States is warranted but precluded by work on other species
having higher priority for listing.
The Canada lynx is a medium-sized cat with long legs; large, well-
furred paws; long tufts on the ears; and a short, black-tipped tail
(McCord and Cardoza 1982). The lynx's long legs and large feet make it
highly adapted to hunting in deep snow.
The historical and present North American range of the Canada lynx
includes Alaska and that part of Canada that extends from the Yukon and
Northwest Territories south across the United States border, and east
to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. In the contiguous United States, the
lynx historically occurred in the Cascade Range of Washington and
Oregon, south in the Rocky Mountains to Utah and Colorado and east
along the Canadian border to the Great Lakes States and Northeast
region (McCord and Cardoza 1982; Quinn and Parker 1987). Barriers of
unsuitable habitat occur along the southeastern Great Lakes, the Great
Plains, and Wyoming's Red Desert.
Canada lynx are specialized predators that are highly dependent on
the snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) for food. Snowshoe hare prefer
diverse, early successional forests with stands of conifers for cover
and shrubby understories (Monthey 1986; Koehler and Aubry 1994). Canada
lynx usually concentrate their foraging in areas where hare numbers are
high, but they also require late successional forests with downed logs
and windfalls to provide cover for denning sites, escape, and
protection from severe weather (McCord and Cardoza 1982).
Based on expert opinion, information received during and since the
original status review, and Service expertise, the Service has
determined that resident, viable Canada lynx populations existed in the
subalpine/coniferous forests of the Western United States and in the
ecotone between boreal and northern hardwood forests in the Eastern
United States.
The Service used the new vertebrate population policy published
February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722), to determine whether the Canada lynx in
the contiguous United States constitutes a distinct population segment.
The contiguous United States population of the lynx is discrete based
on the international boundary between Canada and the contiguous United
States and differences in status and habitat management of Canada lynx
between the United States and Canada. In Canada, management of forest
lands and conservation of wildlife habitat varies depending on
Provincial regulations. There is no overarching forest practices
legislation in Canada, such as the United States' National Forest
Management Act, governing management of national lands and/or providing
for consideration of wildlife habitat requirements. Additionally,
Canada lynx harvest regulations vary, being regulated by individual
Province or, in some cases, individual trapping district. Recent
declining lynx numbers in southern Canada exacerbated by loss of lynx
habitat along the United States/Canadian border severely restricts the
ability for lynx numbers in the contiguous United States to improve (M.
DonCarlos, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, in litt. 1994; W.
Krohn, in litt. 1994; R. Lafond, Quebec Department of Recreation, Fish,
and Game, pers. comm. 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm. 1994; J. Litvaitis,
University of New Hampshire, pers. comm. 1994; C. Pils, in litt. 1994).
Dispersal of Canada lynx into the contiguous United States is now
necessary to replenish lynx numbers because lynx throughout much of
their contiguous United States range are rare to extirpated. If the
Canada lynx populations in southern Canada rebound, they should be able
to help replenish lynx numbers in the United States. If the lynx
populations in southern Canada are unable to rebound, then it appears
natural recovery of Canada lynx in some portions of the contiguous
United States is unlikely.
In a general sense, Canada lynx in the contiguous United States
might be considered biologically and/or ecologically significant simply
because they represent the southern extent of the species' overall
range. There are climatic and vegetational differences between Canada
lynx habitat in the contiguous United States and that in northern
latitudes in Canada (Kuchler 1965). In the contiguous United States,
Canada lynx inhabit transition zones that are a mosaic between boreal/
coniferous forest and northern hardwoods, whereas in more northern
latitudes, Canada lynx habitat is the boreal forest ecosystem (Barbour
et al. 1980; McCord and Cardoza 1982; Koehler and Aubry 1994; M.
Hunter, University of Maine, pers. comm. 1994). Canada lynx and
snowshoe hare population dynamics in the contiguous
[[Page 28655]]
United States are different from those in northern Canada (Koehler and
Aubry 1994, Washington Department of Natural Resources 1996).
Historically, Canada lynx and snowshoe hare populations have been less
cyclic in the contiguous United States, not exhibiting the extreme
cyclic population fluctuations of the northern latitudes for which
Canada lynx are noted (Wolff 1980, Brittell et al. 1989, Koehler and
Aubry 1994, Washington Department of Natural Resources 1996). The less
cyclic nature of this population has been attributed to the lower
quality and quantity of habitat available in southern latitudes and/or
the presence of additional snowshoe hare predators (Wolff et al. 1982,
Koehler and Aubry 1994). The Service determines that the contiguous
United States population of the Canada lynx is significant under the
Service's Distinct Vertebrate Population Policy. Thus, the Canada lynx
in the contiguous United States qualifies as a distinct population
segment to be considered for listing under the Act.
Canada lynx have been observed in 22 of the contiguous United
States. Historical lynx observations in several States (North Dakota,
South Dakota, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, and Virginia) may have been a result
of transients dispersing during periods of high lynx population density
elsewhere. However, the Service believes that historical lynx
observations, trapping records, and other evidence documented in Maine,
New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,
Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana,
Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado confirms the Canada lynx as a viable
species in the contiguous 48 States. Presently, the Service is able to
confirm the presence of Canada lynx in only the States of Montana,
Washington, Wyoming, and Maine. The Service believes the States of
Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Utah, and Colorado probably have
lynx, but they are extremely rare. Lynx are likely extirpated
throughout the remainder of their historical range (New York,
Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Oregon).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
The following information is a summary and discussion of the five
factors or listing criteria as set forth in section 4(a)(1) of the Act
and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated to implement the listing
provisions of the Act and their applicability to the current status of
the contiguous United States population of the Canada lynx.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range.
Human alteration of the abundance, species composition,
successional stages, and fragmentation of forests, and the resulting
changes in the forest's capacity to sustain lynx populations, affect
lynx habitat. Timber harvest and its related activities influence
Canada lynx habitat in the contiguous United States. Intensive tree
harvesting (i.e., clearcutting and thinning) can eliminate the mosaic
of habitats necessary for Canada lynx survival, including late
successional denning and early successional prey habitat. Specifically,
these activities can result in reduced cover, unusable forest openings,
and monotypic stands with a sparse understory that has been determined
to be unfavorable for Canada lynx (Brittell et al. 1989; de Vos and
Matel 1952; Harger 1965; Hatler 1988; Koehler 1990; K. Gustafson, pers.
comm. 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm. 1994).
Over a relatively short period of time at the turn of the century
in the Great Lakes and Northeast Regions, timber extraction resulted in
the replacement of mature conifer forest with extensive tracts of very
early successional habitat and eliminated cover for lynx and hare
(Jackson 1961; Barbour et al. 1980; Belcher 1980; Irland 1982).
Coniferous forests also were cleared for agriculture during this
period. This sudden alteration of habitat likely resulted in sharp
declines in snowshoe hare numbers over large areas, subsequently
reducing Canada lynx numbers (Jackson 1961; Keener 1971; K. Gustafson,
pers. comm. 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm. 1994). The impacts of logging
conducted in the Northeast Region during the late 1800's continue to
affect Canada lynx habitat (D. Degraff, pers. comm. 1994; J. Lanier,
pers. comm. 1994).
Lynx populations have not increased in the Northeast Region despite
some apparent improvements in habitat. Forested habitat in the
Northeast has increased because of land-use changes during the past
century (Irland 1982; Litvaitis 1993), and in some areas there may be a
gradual upward trend in the coniferous component as spruce (Picea spp.)
and fir (Abies spp.) regenerate beneath hardwood species (D. Degraff,
pers. comm. 1994), but fragmentation of habitat apparently remains a
factor in the continued absence of lynx populations in the Northeast
Region (Litvaitis et al. 1991; W. Krohn, University of Maine, in litt.
1994; R. La Fond, Quebec Department of Recreation, Fish, and Game,
pers. comm. 1994).
Historically, Canada lynx populations in the Northeast were
periodically supplemented with transient or dispersing individuals from
the north (Litvaitis et al. 1991; J. Lanier, pers. comm. 1994).
However, over the past several decades, Canada lynx numbers also
declined along southern portions of its range in Canada in response to
overexploitation and clearing of forested habitat for agriculture,
timber, and human settlement (Mills 1990; McAlpine and Heward 1993;
Quebec Department of Recreation, Fish, and Game, in litt. 1993). Today,
diminished numbers of Canada lynx in southern Canada and the lack of
functional dispersal routes from Canadian lynx populations to the
Northeast Region have substantially restricted the opportunity for
Canada lynx to recolonize any available habitat in the Northeast
(Litvaitis et al. 1991; W. Krohn, University of Maine, in litt. 1994;
R. La Fond, Quebec Department of Recreation, Fish, and Game, pers.
comm. 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm. 1994).
In the Northern and Southern Rocky Mountain Regions, the majority
of Canada lynx habitat occurs on public lands. Currently, there are few
activities on national forest lands generating the early successional
timber stands important to snowshoe hares and Canada lynx (S. Blair,
U.S. Forest Service, pers. comm. 1994). In areas of Washington, timber
harvest on national forest and State lands is likely to exceed the
recommended rate of harvest described in Canada lynx habitat management
guidelines developed for the region (Washington Department of Wildlife
1993).
Forest fires naturally maintained mosaics of early successional
forest stands forming ideal snowshoe hare and Canada lynx habitat (Todd
1985; Fischer and Bradley 1987; Quinn and Parker 1987). Suppression of
forest fires in the West has allowed forests to mature, thereby
reducing habitat suitability for snowshoe hares and Canada lynx
(Brittell et al. 1989; Fox 1978; Koehler 1990; Washington Department of
Wildlife 1993; T. Bailey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt.
1994; H. Golden, pers. comm. 1994).
In the Great Lakes Region, Northeast, and Colorado, clearing of
forests for urbanization, ski areas, and agriculture has degraded or
reduced the available suitable lynx habitat, reduced the prey base, and
increased human disturbance and the likelihood of accidental trapping,
shooting, or highway mortality (de Vos and Matel 1952; Harger 1965;
Belcher 1980; Thiel and Hallowell 1988; Todd 1985; Thompson 1987;
Harper et
[[Page 28656]]
al. 1990; Brocke et al. 1991; Thompson and Halfpenny 1991). In some
areas, the rapid pace of subdivision for recreational home sites has
been identified as a serious concern to maintaining the integrity of
Northeastern forests (Harper et al. 1990).
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The Service believes that an overharvest of Canada lynx during the
1970's and 1980's has reduced the potential for recovery of lynx
populations in the contiguous United States and has reduced
repopulation of areas of suitable habitat. Historically, lynx trapping
provided a significant economic return in the fur trading industry
(Quinn and Parker 1987; Hatler 1988). This economic incentive increases
the threat of overexploitation of Canada lynx populations. Where
exploitation is intense and recruitment is low, trapping can
significantly depress lynx populations (Koehler and Aubry 1994).
Overutilization of Canada lynx was clearly documented when lynx were
substantially overharvested in response to unprecedented high pelt
prices during the 1970's and 1980's, the effect of which is still
evident today in the extremely low numbers of lynx in the contiguous
United States and southern Canada (Bailey et al. 1986; B. Berg,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, pers. comm. 1994; D. Mech,
pers. comm. 1994; M. Novak, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,
pers. comm. 1994; A. Todd, Alberta Department of Forestry, Lands, and
Wildlife, pers. comm. 1994).
Ward and Krebs (1985) concluded that human-induced mortality is the
most important mortality factor for Canada lynx populations. Trapping
mortality has been shown to be entirely additive (i.e., in addition to
natural mortality) rather than compensatory (taking the place of
natural mortality) (Brand and Keith 1979). In Minnesota, trapping was
estimated to account for 81 percent of known lynx mortality during
cyclic lows and 58 percent of mortality during cyclic highs (Henderson
1978).
Additive trapping mortality of Canada lynx during the 1970's and
1980's represented an overexploitation that depleted the breeding stock
of lynx populations in the United States and southern Canada, limiting
the ability of lynx populations to subsequently increase and to
repopulate areas of suitable habitat. Lynx populations may have become
so severely depleted that they cannot reach their former densities
during the periods of abundant prey and maximum reproductive success
(Quinn and Parker 1987; Hatler 1988).
In response to concerns about substantially declining harvests
during the 1970's and 1980's (indicating that lynx populations were
being overexploited), Washington, Montana, Minnesota, Alberta, British
Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Alaska severely restricted or
closed their lynx harvest seasons (Bailey et al. 1986; Hatler 1988;
Hash 1990; Washington Department of Wildlife 1993; S. Conn, in litt.
1990; M. DonCarlos, in litt. 1994; B. Giddings, in litt. 1994; R.
McFetridge, Alberta Environmental Protection, in litt. 1994; I. McKay,
in litt. 1994; M. Novak, pers. comm. 1994). Because of continued
concern for lynx populations, neither Washington, Montana, nor
Minnesota have relaxed their restrictions, and many Canadian provinces
still maintain careful control of lynx harvest (Alberta Environmental
Protection 1993; Washington Department of Wildlife 1993; M. DonCarlos,
in litt. 1994; B. Giddings, in litt. 1994; R. McFetridge, in litt.
1994).
Where Canada lynx populations have been substantially reduced or
extirpated in the contiguous United States, natural recolonization of
suitable habitat will require migrating lynx from Canadian populations.
The lynx population in portions of Quebec apparently has not yet fully
recovered despite adequate, increasing hare populations (Quebec
Department of Recreation, Fish, and Game, in litt. 1993). Because of
concern over a potentially declining lynx population, the British
Columbia government has closed the season on Canada lynx for 3 years
(A. Fontana, British Columbia Department of Wildlife, pers. comm.
1994).
Although overutilization is no longer an immediate concern, the
adverse impacts of past overharvest continue to threaten Canada lynx
survival and recovery in the contiguous United States.
C. Disease or Predation
Disease and predation are not known to be factors threatening
Canada lynx.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Although States provide the Canada lynx with protection from
hunting and trapping, currently there are no regulatory mechanisms to
protect lynx habitat from further deterioration.
Canada lynx are classified as endangered by Vermont (1972), New
Hampshire (1980), Wisconsin (1972), Michigan (1987, as threatened in
1983), and Colorado (1975). Lynx are classified as threatened by
Washington (1993). Utah has classified the lynx as a sensitive species.
Two States officially classify them as extirpated (Pennsylvania (J.
Belfonti, in litt. 1994) and Massachusetts (J. Cardoza, in litt.
1994)). Despite being classified as small game or furbearers, Canada
lynx are fully protected from harvest by Maine (1967), New York (1967),
Minnesota (1984), Wyoming (1973), and Oregon (E. Gaines, pers. comm.
1997). Canada lynx trapping seasons still occur in Montana and Idaho,
but legal harvest is severely restricted. Idaho has a harvest quota of
three lynx annually, while Montana currently has a statewide harvest
quota of two.
On February 4, 1977, the Canada lynx was included in Appendix II of
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Flora and Fauna (CITES). CITES is an international treaty established
to prevent international trade that may be detrimental to the survival
of plants and animals. However, CITES does not itself regulate take or
domestic trade.
Habitat regulatory mechanisms specific to Canada lynx are limited.
Although the U.S. Forest Service classifies lynx as a sensitive species
within the contiguous United States, few national forests have
developed population viability objectives or management guidelines
required by the National Forest Management Act because of limited
information about Canada lynx requirements.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Elevated levels of human access into forests are a significant
threat to Canada lynx because they increase the likelihood of lynx
encountering people, which may result in more lynx deaths by
intentional and unintentional shooting, trapping, and being hit by
automobiles (Hatler 1988; Thiel and Hallowell 1988; Brittell et al.
1989; Koehler and Brittell 1990; Brocke et al. 1991; Andrew 1992;
Washington Department of Wildlife 1993; Brocke et al. 1993; M. Hunter,
University of Maine, pers. comm. 1994). Human access into Canada lynx
habitat in many areas has increased over the last several decades
because of increased construction of roads and trails and the growing
popularity of snowmobiles and other off-road vehicles. Poaching and the
increased legal harvest of Canada lynx that occurs with greater access
has been a concern in nearly every State and in many Canadian
Provinces.
Human access is a particularly important factor during periods when
Canada lynx populations are low and concentrated in localized refugia.
If
[[Page 28657]]
such refugia were accessible, local lynx populations could be easily
extirpated by trapping, particularly if there are incentives such as
high pelt prices (Carbyn and Patriquin 1983; Ward and Krebs 1985;
Bailey et al. 1986; J. Weaver, pers. comm. 1994; Koehler and Aubry
1994).
Traffic on highways has been shown to pose a considerable mortality
risk to Canada lynx (Brocke et al. 1991; B. Ruediger, U.S. Forest
Service, pers. comm. 1997). Dispersing or transient lynx are more
vulnerable to traffic deaths than residents, because their movement
over large areas increases their contact with roads.
Canada lynx may be displaced or eliminated when competitors (e.g.,
bobcat (Lynx rufus) or coyote (Canis latrans)) expand into its range
(de Vos and Matel 1952; Parker et al. 1983; Quinn and Parker 1987; M.
DonCarlos, pers. comm. 1994; D. Major, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
pers. comm. 1994; J. Weaver, pers. comm. 1994). The Canada lynx is at a
competitive disadvantage against these other species because it is a
specialized predator, whereas the bobcat and coyote are generalists
able to feed on a wide variety of prey. Some biologists believe
competition has played a significant role in the decline of Canada lynx
(Brocke 1982; Parker et al. 1983; E. Bangs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, pers. comm. 1994).
Competition between Canada lynx and other species may be
facilitated through alteration of forests by timber harvest or other
human activities. Modified habitat may be more suitable to Canada lynx
competitors or may facilitate the establishment of a competitor after
local extirpation of the lynx (McCord and Cardoza 1982; Quinn and
Parker 1987).
The threats to resident lynx from legal trapping for other species
are reduced in many regions because there is probably limited overlap
in the ranges of bobcats or coyotes with the range of lynx (M.
DonCarlos, pers. comm. 1994; K. Elowe, Maine Department of Inland
Fisheries and Wildlife, pers. comm. 1994; J. Lanier, pers. comm. 1994;
D. Mech, pers. comm. 1994; Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and
Wildlife, in litt. 1997). Hunting seasons for bobcats may be a
potential threat because of hunters' difficulty in distinguishing
between bobcat and lynx.
Finding
Section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act states that the Service may make
warranted but precluded findings if it can demonstrate that an
immediate proposed rule is precluded by other pending proposals and
that expeditious progress is being made on other listing actions.
According to Service policy, such species are assigned candidate status
and given a listing priority number. Guidelines for assigning listing
priorities were published in the Federal Register on September 21, 1983
(48 FR 43098). The guidelines describe a system for considering three
factors in assigning a species a numerical listing priority on a scale
of 1 to 12. The three factors are magnitude of threat (high or moderate
to low), immediacy of threat (imminent or nonimminent), and taxonomic
distinctiveness (monotypic genus, species, or subspecies/population).
For a population, such as the Canada lynx, listing priority numbers of
3, 6, 9, or 12 are possible.
The Service believes that several limiting factors pose threats to
the continued existence of Canada lynx in the contiguous United States,
including: (1) Habitat loss and/or modification (due to human
alteration primarily through timber harvest, road construction, and
fire suppression); (2) overutilization from past commercial harvest
(trapping) that has resulted in extremely low populations that remain
subject to incidental capture from legal trapping of other furbearers;
(3) inadequate regulatory mechanisms to protect the remaining lynx
habitat; and, (4) other factors such as increased human access into
suitable habitat (refugia) and human-induced changes in interspecific
competition. The Service has determined that the overall magnitude of
all threats to the small population of Canada lynx in the contiguous
United States is high and the threats are ongoing, thus they are
imminent. A listing priority of 3 consequently has been assigned for
the Canada lynx population in the contiguous United States.
Region 6 has determined that listing of the Canada lynx is
warranted, but development of a proposed rule at this time is precluded
by work on other higher priority species. The Service will reevaluate
this warranted but precluded finding within 12 months of the date of
publication of this notice of finding. The Service also may reevaluate
the finding immediately if significant new information becomes
available in the next 12 months.
Before making a warranted but precluded finding, the Service must
show that it is making expeditious progress on listing species. A
congressionally imposed moratorium on listing species was lifted on
April 26, 1996. Since that date the Service has completed 131 final
determinations, including publication of final rules for endangered and
threatened species and withdrawals of proposed rules. The Service
believes these numbers show that expeditious progress is being made to
list species within the resources available.
This warranted but precluded finding automatically elevates the
Canada lynx to candidate species status. The Service will reevaluate
this warranted but precluded finding 1 year from the date of the
finding. If sufficient new data or information become available in the
future regarding threats, status of the lynx, etc., the Service will
reassess the status of the species.
The Service's 12-month finding contains more detailed information
regarding the above decisions. A copy may be obtained from the Montana
Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available upon request from
the Montana Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Authors: The primary authors of this document are Lori Nordstrom,
Anne Vandehey and Kevin Shelley (Montana Field Office); Jeri Wood
(Boise Field Office); Chris Warren (Spokane Field Office); and Ted
Thomas (Olympia Field Office).
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
Dated: May 21, 1997.
J. L. Gerst,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 97-13808 Filed 5-21-97; 2:46 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 97-13799 Notice of Public Meeting on Review of the Ethylene Oxide Standard (29 CFR 1910.1047)
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 27, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28649-28650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-13799]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1910
[Docket No. H-200-C]
Notice of Public Meeting on Review of the Ethylene Oxide Standard
(29 CFR 1910.1047)
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is
conducting a review of the Ethylene Oxide standard in order to
determine, consistent with Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning
and Review and Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, whether
this standard should be maintained without change, rescinded, or
modified in order to make it more effective or less burdensome in
achieving its objectives, to bring it into better alignment with the
objectives of Executive Order 12866, or to make it more consistent with
the objectives of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to achieve regulatory
goals while imposing as few burdens as possible on small employers.
Written public comments on all aspects of compliance with the
Ethylene Oxide standard are welcomed. OSHA will also hold a
stakeholder's meeting to provide an opportunity for interested parties
to comment on whether the Ethylene Oxide standard should be eliminated,
modified, or continued without change to obtain the objectives
described above.
DATES: The public meeting will be held on Monday, June 30, 1997. The
meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and is scheduled to end at 12:00 p.m.
Written comments should be received by August 1, 1997 in the OSHA
Docket Office at the address listed below.
ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held in Room N3437 of the Frances
Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20210.
Requests to appear and written comments: OSHA requests that any
person wishing to appear at the public meeting notify OSHA in writing.
To assure that time is provided for oral comments, the request should
be received by OSHA no later than Monday, June 23, 1997, and should
identify the person and/or organization intending to appear, address
and phone/fax number, the amount of time requested, and a brief summary
of the comments to be presented. Please send written requests to appear
to Nancy Dorris at the address listed below. All comments received from
interested parties will be included in Docket H-200-C, and will be
available for public review in the OSHA Docket Office, Room N2625, 200
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210, Telephone (202) 219-
7894.
Persons with disabilities who need special accommodations should
contact Nancy Dorris, by Monday, June 23, 1997, at the address
indicated below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Dorris, Office of Regulatory
Analysis, Directorate of Policy, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N3627, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20210, Telephone (202) 219-4690, extension 134, Fax (202) 219-
4383.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, OSHA promulgated a health standard
for Ethylene Oxide (29 CFR 1910.1047) with a permissible exposure limit
of 1 part per million parts of air (1 ppm) as an 8-hour time-weighted
average (49 FR 25734, June 22, 1984). The basis for this action was a
determination, based on animal and human data, that exposure to
Ethylene Oxide presents a carcinogenic, mutagenic, genotoxic,
reproductive, neurologic and sensitization hazard to workers. The
standard provides for, among other requirements, methods of exposure
control, personal protective equipment, measurement of employee
exposures, training, medical surveillance, signs and labels, regulated
areas, emergency procedures, and recordkeeping. An action level of 0.5
ppm as an 8-hour time weighted average is included as the level above
which employers must initiate certain compliance activities such as
periodic employee exposure monitoring and medical surveillance. In
instances where the employer can demonstrate that employee exposures
are below the action level, the employer is not obligated to comply
with most of the requirements of the standard. In 1988, OSHA amended
the Ethylene Oxide standard by adopting an excursion limit of 5 ppm
averaged over a sampling period of 15 minutes (53 FR 11414, April 6,
1988).
OSHA estimated in the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
Ethylene Oxide standard that the standard would have an annual cost of
$35.5 million (49 FR 25734, June 22, 1984). OSHA also estimated that
between 457 and 871 cancer fatalities would be prevented over a fifty
year period as a result of the standard.
OSHA has selected the Ethylene Oxide standard for review in
accordance with the regulatory review provisions at Section 5 of
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 51739, Oct. 4, 1993) and Section
610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The
purpose of the review is to determine whether the standard should be
continued without change, rescinded, or amended to make it more
effective or less burdensome in achieving its objectives, to bring it
into better alignment with the objectives of Executive Order 12866, or
to make it more consistent with the objectives of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to achieve regulatory goals while
[[Page 28650]]
imposing as little burden as possible on small employers. In the event
the Agency determines, based on the results of this review, that the
rule should be rescinded or modified, appropriate rulemaking will be
initiated.
An important step in the review process involves the gathering and
analysis of information from affected persons about their experience
with the rule and any material changes in circumstances since issuance
of the rule. This notice requests written comments and announces a
public meeting to provide an opportunity for interested parties to
comment on the continuing need for, adequacy or inadequacy, and
potential improvement of this rule. Comment concerning the following
subjects would assist the Agency in determining whether to retain the
standard unchanged or to initiate rulemaking for purposes of revision
or recission:
1. The benefits and utility of the rule in its current form and, if
amended, in its amended form;
2. Whether potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives to the standard exist;
3. The continued need for the rule;
4. The complexity of the rule;
5. Whether and to what extent the rule overlaps, duplicates, or
conflicts with other Federal, State, and local governmental rules;
6. Information on any new developments in technology, economic
conditions, or other factors affecting the ability of affected firms to
comply with the Ethylene Oxide rule;
7. Alternatives to the rule or portions of the rule that would
minimize significant impacts on small businesses while achieving the
objectives of the Occupational Safety and Health Act; and
8. The effectiveness of the standard as implemented by small
entities.
Persons making timely written requests to speak at the public
meeting will be given priority for oral comments, as time permits.
Other persons wishing to speak should register at the meeting from 8:30
to 9:00. OSHA will make every effort to accommodate individuals wishing
to speak at the public meeting.
Authority: This document was prepared under the direction of
Gregory R. Watchman, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20210.
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 20th day of May, 1997.
Gregory R. Watchman,
Acting Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-13799 Filed 5-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 97-13798 Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Community Right-to-Know; Additional Time to Report
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 27, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28651-28652]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-13798]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 372
[OPPTS-400113; FRL-5720-8]
Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Community Right-to-Know;
Additional Time to Report
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Extension of time for submission of reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is announcing that it will allow facilities required to
submit Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reports for calendar year 1996
until August 1, 1997, to file those reports. These TRI reports under
section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
and section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act would otherwise be due
on or before July 1, 1997. EPA's distribution of the reporting package,
which includes extensive materials and guidance for preparing TRI
reports, for the 1996 reporting year has been delayed. To allow
facilities adequate time to prepare and submit complete and accurate
TRI reports, EPA is allowing facilities an extra month in which to
report.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria J. Doa, 202-260-9592, e-mail:
[email protected], for specific information on this notice, or
for more information on EPCRA section 313, the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Hotline, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code 5101, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, Toll free: 1-800-535-
0202, in Virginia and Alaska: 703-412-9877 or Toll free TDD: 1-800-553-
7672.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. 11023 (EPCRA, which is also referred to as Title
III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Pub.
L. 99-499)), requires certain facilities manufacturing, processing, or
otherwise using listed toxic chemicals to report their environmental
releases of such chemicals annually. Such facilities also must report
pollution prevention and recycling data for such chemicals, pursuant to
section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), 42 U.S.C. 13106.
EPCRA section 313 and PPA section 6607 require that covered facilities
report this information on or before July 1 of each year for activities
[[Page 28652]]
at those facilities during the previous calendar year. EPA is required
to put the EPCRA section 313/PPA section 6607 information in an
electronic data base that is accessible to the public. This data base
is commonly referred to as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). State
and local governments, industry, non-government organizations, and the
public make extensive use of this data base.
Each year, prior to the reporting deadline, EPA develops and sends
to facilities a reporting package containing the current TRI reporting
form (Form R), the alternate threshold reporting form (Form A), the
list of toxic chemicals subject to reporting, and instructions for
reporting. In recent years, the package has also included computer
diskettes containing the automated Form R for electronic reporting. EPA
has found that providing this extensive reporting package reduces
confusion and the number of reporting errors, and expedites the whole
reporting process. In the past, these packages have been distributed by
early March of the year in which reports are due to allow adequate time
for review and use by the reporting facilities.
II. Additional Time to Report for 1996
For the 1996 reporting year, EPA revised the Form R to collect more
specific information on disposal into underground injection wells and
landfills. The Office of Management and Budget approved the reporting
and recordkeeping requirements related to the revised Form R on April
30, 1997. Because EPA could not print the forms and instructions until
the Agency received approval for the Form R, EPA's printing and
distribution of the 1996 Form R will not be complete until June 1997.
Thus, facilities subject to TRI reporting may not have sufficient time
to prepare and submit their reports by July 1, 1997. EPA is concerned
that in rushing to report by July 1, facilities may make errors that
would reduce the accuracy and utility of the reports and, ultimately,
the public data base. In addition, EPA believes that the delay in the
distribution of the reporting package may create concern in the
regulated community regarding potential enforcement actions, including
civil penalties, for those facilities submitting reports that may
contain errors as a result of the late distribution of the EPA
reporting package or reporting after the July 1, 1997 deadline.
In recognition of the importance to State and local governments,
industry, and the public that facilities submit complete and accurate
TRI reports, EPA is allowing all reporting facilities an additional
month to August 1, 1997, to submit their 1996 TRI reports. However,
reports for the 1996 reporting year that are filed after August 1,
1997, will be subject to EPA enforcement action, where appropriate.
This allowance of additional time for reporting applies only to the
EPCRA section 313/PPA section 6607 reporting obligations for TRI
reports otherwise due on July 1, 1997, covering calendar year 1996.
Nothing in this action shall be construed to apply to any other EPCRA
reporting obligations, or to any TRI reports due for past or future
reporting years. Further, this allowance of additional time for
reporting applies only to the federal EPCRA section 313/PPA section
6607 reporting obligation; it does not apply to independent obligations
under State laws which also require TRI-type reports. However, EPA
encourages the States with similar requirements that relate to federal
TRI reporting to embrace this allowance of additional time. To the
extent that this action might be construed as rulemaking subject to
section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, for the reasons stated
above, EPA has determined that notice and an opportunity for public
comment are impracticable and unnecessary. Providing for public comment
might further delay reporting, and, because there is no substantive
change in the reporting obligation, other than allowing an additional
month, the public will continue to receive the same information.
Moreover, a further delay in reporting would almost certainly mean a
delay in the release of the information to the public. Also, public
comment would not further inform EPA's decision because the events
giving rise to the need to provide extra time for reporting have
already occurred. In addition, additional notice and comment procedures
in this situation would be contrary to the public interest in timely
and accurate reporting of data under EPCRA section 313 and PPA section
6607.
III. Availability of the Form R and Instructions
A. The Internet
Notwithstanding the delay in distribution of the printed version,
the revised Form R and Instructions, currently are available on the
Internet. The Form R and Instructions, which can be downloaded as
portable document format (PDF) files, are available at http://
www.epa.gov/opptintr/tri/formr.htm. The Automated Form R (AFR) and
Instructions is also available on the internet. The internet address
for the AFR is http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/afr96.
B. Fax on Demand
Using a faxphone call 202-401-0527 and select item 5100 for an
index of available material and corresponding item numbers related to
this document.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372
Environmental protection, Community right-to-know, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Toxic chemicals.
Dated: May 20, 1997.
Lynn R. Goldman,
Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.
[FR Doc. 97-13798 Filed 5-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 97-13762 The North American Numbering Council (NANC) Issues Recommendations on the North American Numbering Plan Administrator, Billing and Collection Agent, and Related Rules; Pleading Cycle Established
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 27, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28652-28653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-13762]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 1
[CC Docket No. 92-237, DA 97-1055]
The North American Numbering Council (NANC) Issues
Recommendations on the North American Numbering Plan Administrator,
Billing and Collection Agent, and Related Rules; Pleading Cycle
Established
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 19, 1997, the Commission released a public notice
announcing the North American Numbering Council's (NANC) recommendation
for a North American Numbering Plan Administrator, Billing and
Collection Agent, and related rules filed with the Commission on May
15, 1997. The intended effect of this action is to make the public
aware that the FCC is seeking comments on the NANC's recommendation.
DATES: Comments are due by June 20, 1997 and reply comments by July 3,
1997.
ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
1919 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marian Gordon or Scott Shefferman,
Network Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau, at (202) 418-2320.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Released: May 19, 1997
1. In a Report and Order released on July 13, 1995 in the above-
referenced
[[Page 28653]]
docket (Number Administration Order), the Federal Communications
Commission (Commission) established the North American Numbering
Council (NANC) pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5
U.S.C., App. 2 (FACA). The Number Administration Order directed the
NANC, among other things, to recommend to the Commission and to other
member countries of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) a neutral
entity to serve as NANP Administrator and an appropriate mechanism for
recovering the costs of NANP administration in the United States. The
membership of NANC, which includes thirty-two voting members and four
special non-voting members, was selected to represent all viewpoints
regarding numbering administration. The Commission's charge that the
NANC recommend an impartial NANP Administrator is consistent with
Congress's directive in Section 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, that an
impartial numbering administrator be named to make telecommunications
numbering available on an equitable basis.
2. On May 15, 1997, the Commission received the NANC's
Recommendation on the NANP Administrator and Billing and Collection
Agent (Recommendation). Earlier, the NANC had received proposals in
response to its Requirements Document that set forth the qualities and
attributes of the NANPA and Billing and Collection Agent and the
functions that each would be expected to perform.1 Bell
Communications Research (Bellcore), the Center for Communications
Management Information (CCMI), Lockheed Martin Corporation (Lockheed),
and Mitretek Systems (Mitretek) responded with proposals to serve as
NANPA. Proposals to serve as Billing and Collection Agent were received
from CCMI, Lockheed, and the National Exchange Carriers Association
(NECA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Requirements Document is filed in CC Docket No. 92-237
and is available for inspection and copying in the Commission's
Public Reference Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. As indicated in the Recommendation, a majority of the NANC (13
members) voted to recommend Lockheed as the new NANPA for a period of
five years and a minority (11 members) voted to recommend Mitretek.
NANC further recommends that the entity designated to serve as the
NANPA agree to two conditions. First, such entity must agree to make
available any and all intellectual property and associated hardware
including, but not limited to, systems, software, interface
specifications and supporting documentation, generated by or resulting
from its performance as NANPA, and to make such property available to
whomever NANC directs, free of charge. Such entity must specify any
property it proposes to exclude from the foregoing category of property
based on the existence of such property prior to the entity's selection
as NANPA. Second, the entity selected as the NANPA must perform the
NANPA functions at the price the entity submitted in its proposal to
the NANC that formed the basis for the entity's selection by the NANC.
Such entity, however, may request from NANC and, with approval by the
Commission, NANC may grant an adjustment in this price should the
actual number of Central Office (CO) code assignments made per year,
the number of numbering plan area codes (NPAs) requiring relief per
year, or, the number of NPA relief meetings per NPA requiring relief
exceed 120 percent of NANPA's assumptions for the above tasks made in
the proposal to the NANC that formed the basis for the entity's
selection by the NANC.
4. The NANC also recommends proposed rules, contained in
attachments to the Recommendation, to govern the performance of the
NANPA and Billing and Collection Agent and to address resolution of
numbering disputes. Finally, the NANC unanimously recommends NECA as
Billing and Collection Agent, subject to the Federal Communications
Commission's ordering NECA to create an independent and neutral Board
of Directors for NANPA Billing and Collection.
5. We seek comments on NANC's Recommendation. Interested parties
should file an original and four copies of their comments on the NANC's
North American Numbering Plan Administrator and Billing and Collection
Agent Recommendation by June 20, 1997, and reply comments by July 3,
1997, with the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20554. Comments and reply
comments should reference CC Docket No. 92-237. In addition, parties
should send two copies to Jeannie Grimes, Common Carrier Bureau, FCC,
Suite 235, 2000 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20554, and one copy to
ITS, at 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036. Comments and reply
comments will be available for public inspection and copying during
regular business hours in the Commission's Public Reference Center,
Room 239, 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20554. Copies of comments
and reply comments will also be available from ITS, at 1231 20th
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, or by calling (202) 857-3800.
6. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. 2
Section 9, and consistent with its charter, the NANC's authority is
limited to providing advice and recommendations to the Commission. All
procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C.
section 551 et. seq., and other applicable statutes will apply to this
proceeding. We will treat this proceeding as a non-restricted
rulemaking for purposes of the Commission's ex parte rules. See
generally 47 CFR Secs. 1.1200(a), 1.1206. For further information
contact Marian Gordon or Scott Shefferman, Network Services Division,
Common Carrier Bureau, at (202) 418-2320.
Federal Communications Commission.
Geraldine A. Matise,
Chief, Network Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-13762 Filed 5-21-97; 12:25 pm]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 97-13753 Extension of Comment Period for the Proposed Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste/Petroleum Refining/Notice of Data Availability (NODA)
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 27, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28650-28651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-13753]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 261, 271, and 302
[SWH-FRL-5831-1]
Extension of Comment Period for the Proposed Identification and
Listing of Hazardous Waste/Petroleum Refining/Notice of Data
Availability (NODA)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule/notice of data availability; extension of comment
period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is
extending the comment period for the proposed listing determination for
the petroleum refining industry, which appeared in the Federal Register
on April 8, 1997 (see 62 FR 16747). The public comment period for this
proposed rule was to end on June 9, 1997. The purpose of this notice is
to extend the comment period to end on July 11, 1997.
DATES: EPA will accept public comments on this Notice of Data
Availability until July 11, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their
comments referencing docket number F-97-PRA-FFFFF to: RCRA Docket
[[Page 28651]]
Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA, HQ), 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
D.C. 20460. Hand deliveries of comments should be made to the
Arlington, VA, address listed below.
Comments may also be submitted electronically by sending electronic
mail through the Internet to: [email protected]. Comments in
electronic format should also be identified by the docket number F-97-
PRA-FFFFF. All electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file
avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. If
comments are not submitted electronically, EPA is asking prospective
commenters to voluntarily submit one additional copy of their comments
on labeled personal computer diskettes in ASCII (TEXT) format or a word
processing format that can be converted to ASCII (TEXT). It is
essential to specify on the disk label the word processing software and
version/edition as well as the commenter's name. This will allow EPA to
convert the comments into one of the word processing formats utilized
by the Agency. Please use mailing envelopes designed to physically
protect the submitted diskettes. EPA emphasizes that submission of
comments on diskettes is not mandatory, nor will it result in any
advantage or disadvantage to any commenter.
Commenters should not submit electronically any confidential
business information (CBI). An original and two copies of CBI must be
submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer,
Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
D.C. 20460.
Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing
in the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I,
First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is
open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal
holidays. To review docket materials, it is recommended that the public
make an appointment by calling (703) 603-9230. The public may copy a
maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge.
Additional copies cost $0.15/page. For information on accessing paper
and/or electronic copies of the document, see the Supplementary
Information section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
RCRA Hotline at (800) 424-9346 or TDD (800) 553-7672 (hearing
impaired). In the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, call (703) 412-
9810 or TDD (703) 412-3323. For information on specific aspects of the
report, contact Maximo (Max) Diaz, Jr. or Robert Kayser, Office of
Solid Waste (5304W), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. [E-mail addresses and telephone
numbers: D[email protected], (703) 308-0439;
K[email protected], (703) 308-7304.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed rule and Notice of Data
Availability were issued under Section 3001(b) of RCRA. EPA proposed
and provided supplemental analyses (NODA) to list certain wastes
generated during the refining of petroleum because these wastes may
pose a substantial present or potential risk to human health or the
environment when improperly managed. See 60 FR 57747 (November 20,
1995) and 62 FR 16747 (April 8, 1997) for a more detailed explanation
of the proposed rule and the NODA.
In addition to the notice of extension to the NODA comment period,
the Agency today is including in the docket information that was
inadvertently excluded from the NODA and making a minor typographical
correction. The excluded information consists of Tables A-5.1 through
A-5.9 of Appendix A and Table 6.7 [Physical and Chemical Properties of
Benzene and Exposure Factors Used in the Dermal Exposure Model], all
pertaining to the Supplemental Background Document; Nongroundwater
Pathway Risk Assessment [F-97-PRA-S0017]. The typographical correction
in the same document is as follows: on page C-4 of Appendix C, replace
``(see Section C.3)'' with ``(see Table C.1).'' Some of this additional
information has been added to the rulemaking docket and some will be
added within the next few weeks, before the end of the comment period.
Consequently, EPA cautions all interested parties to check the docket
regularly.
Dated: May 13, 1997.
Elizabeth A. Cotsworth,
Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste.
[FR Doc. 97-13753 Filed 5-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 97-13752 Clean Air Act Promulgation of Extension of Attainment Date for Ozone Nonattainment Area; Ohio; Kentucky
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 27, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 28650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-13752]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[OH107-1b; KY94-9717b; FRL-5830-4]
Clean Air Act Promulgation of Extension of Attainment Date for
Ozone Nonattainment Area; Ohio; Kentucky
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USEPA is proposing to extend the attainment date for the
Cincinnati-Hamilton interstate moderate ozone nonattainment area from
November 15, 1996 to November 15, 1997. This extension is based in part
on monitored air quality readings for the national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) for ozone during 1996. In the final rules section of
this Federal Register, the USEPA is approving these actions as a direct
final rule without prior proposal because USEPA views these actions as
noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed
rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no
adverse comments are received in response to that direct final rule, no
further activity is contemplated in relation to this proposed rule. If
USEPA receives substantive adverse comments which have not already been
responded to, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
the proposed rule. USEPA will not institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should
do so at this time.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before
June 26, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Joseph M. LeVasseur at the USEPA
Region 4 address listed below or to J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation
Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Region 5 at the
address listed below. Copies of the material submitted by the Kentucky
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet(KNREPC) may be
examined during normal business hours at the following locations:
Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, Region 4 Air
Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street S.W. , Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104.
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, 803 Schenkel
Lane, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601.
Copies of the materials submitted by the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency (OEPA) may be examined during normal business hours at the
following locations:
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois, 60604.
OEPA, Division of Air Pollution Control, 1800 Watermark Drive,
Columbus, OH 43215.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randolph O. Cano at (312) 886-6036 or
Joseph M. LeVasseur at (404) 562-9035.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
For additional information see the direct final rule published in
the rules section of this Federal Register.
Dated: May 16, 1997.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
Dated: May 16, 1997.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 97-13752 Filed 5-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 97-13692 Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Britten-Norman Ltd. (Formerly Britten-Norman) BN-2A, BN-2B, and BN-2T Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 27, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28646-28649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-13692]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-CE-25-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Britten-Norman Ltd. (Formerly
Britten-Norman) BN-2A, BN-2B, and BN-2T Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
that would apply to Pilatus Britten-Norman Ltd. (Pilatus Britten-
Norman) BN-2A, BN-2B, and BN-2T series airplanes. The proposed AD would
require repetitively inspecting the junction of the torque link lug and
upper case of the main landing gear (MLG) torque link assemblies for
cracks, and replacing any MLG torque link assembly with a Modification
A39 MLG torque link assembly, either immediately when cracks are found
or after a certain period of time if cracks are not found. Replacing
all MLG torque link assemblies with Modification A39 MLG torque link
assemblies would eliminate the need for the repetitive inspections.
These proposed repetitive inspections are currently required by AD 86-
07-02 for the BN-2A, BN-2B, and BN-2T series airplanes, as well as the
BN2A MK. 111 series airplanes. There are no improved design parts for
the BN2A MK. 111 series airplanes. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) is issuing in a separate action a proposed revision to AD 86-07-
02 to retain the repetitive inspection and replacement (if cracked)
requirements for the BN2A MK. 111 series airplanes.
The actions specified in the proposed AD are intended to prevent
failure of the main landing gear caused by cracks in the torque link
area, which could lead to loss of control of the airplane during
landing operations.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 2, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments on the proposal in triplicate to the FAA,
Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 96-CE-25-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 Pilatus Britten-Norman Limited, Bembridge, Isle of Wight, United
Kingdom PO35 5PR; telephone 44-1983 872511; facsimile 44-1983 873246.
This information also may be examined at the Rules Docket at the
address above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tom Rodriguez, Program Officer,
Brussels Aircraft Certification Division, FAA, Europe, Africa, and
Middle East Office, c/o American Embassy, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium;
telephone (32 2) 508.2717; facsimile (32 2) 230.6899; or Mr. S.M.
Nagarajan, Project Officer, Small Airplane Directorate, Airplane
Certification Service, FAA, 1201 Walnut, suite 900, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 426-6932; facsimile (816) 426-2169.
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. 96-CE-25-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-CE-25-AD, Room
[[Page 28647]]
1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
Discussion
The FAA has determined that reliance on critical repetitive
inspections on aging commuter-class airplanes carries an unnecessary
safety risk when a design change exists that could eliminate or, in
certain instances, reduce the number of those critical inspections. In
determining what inspections are critical, the FAA considers (1) the
safety consequences if the known problem is not detected during the
inspection; (2) the probability of the problem not being detected
during the inspection; (3) whether the inspection area is difficult to
access; and (4) the possibility of damage to an adjacent structure as a
result of the problem.
These factors have led the FAA to establish an aging commuter-class
aircraft policy that requires incorporating a known design change when
it could replace a critical repetitive inspection. With this policy in
mind, the FAA conducted a review of existing AD's that apply to Pilatus
Britten-Norman BN-2A, BN-2B, BN-2T, and BN2A MK. 111 series airplanes.
Assisting the FAA in this review were (1) Pilatus Britten-Norman; (2)
the Regional Airlines Association (RAA); (3) the Civil Aviation
Authority of the United Kingdom; and (4) several operators of the
affected airplanes.
From this review, the FAA has identified AD 86-07-02, Amendment 39-
5382, as one which falls under the FAA's aging aircraft policy. AD 86-
07-02 currently requires repetitively inspecting the junction of the
torque link lug and upper case of the main landing gear (MLG) torque
link assemblies for cracks on Pilatus Britten-Norman BN-2A, BN-2T, and
BN2A MK. 111 series airplanes, and replacing any cracked part.
Pilatus Britten-Norman has developed a modification that, when
incorporated, would eliminate the need for the repetitive inspection
requirement of AD 86-07-02 for the Pilatus Britten-Norman BN-2A, BN-2B,
and BN-2T series airplanes. The requirements of AD 86-07-02 should
still apply for the Pilatus Britten-Norman BN2A MK. 111 series
airplanes.
Applicable Service Information
Fairey Hydraulics Limited has issued Service Bulletin (SB) 32-4,
Issue 4, dated January 30, 1990, which applies to the Pilatus Britten-
Norman BN-2A, BN-2B, and BN-2T series airplanes. This SB includes
procedures for inspecting the junction of the torque link lug and upper
case of the MLG torque link assemblies, and installing new Modification
A39 MLG torque link assemblies. Pilatus Britten-Norman SB BN-2/SB.170,
Issue 4, dated November 16, 1990, references Fairey Hydraulic Limited
SB32-4, Issue 4, dated January 30, 1990.
The FAA's Determination
The FAA has examined all available information related to this
subject matter and has determined that:
AD action should be taken for the Pilatus Britten-Norman
BN-2A, BN-2B, and BN-2T series airplanes to require the installation of
Modification A39 MLG torque link assemblies. The repetitive inspections
of the junction of the torque link lug and upper case of the MLG torque
link assemblies would still be required until the improved parts are
installed; and
AD 86-07-02 should be revised to remove the BN-2A and BN-
2T series airplanes from the applicability of that AD, but retain the
actions for the BN2A MK. 111 series airplanes (this is being proposed
in a separate action).
Explanation of the Provisions of the Proposed AD
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop in other Pilatus Britten-Norman BN-2A, BN-2B, and BN-
2T series airplanes of the same type design, the proposed AD would
require repetitively inspecting the junction of the torque link lug and
upper case of the MLG torque link assemblies for cracks, and replacing
any MLG torque link assembly with a Modification A39 MLG torque link
assembly, either immediately when cracks are found or at a certain
period of time if cracks are not found. Installation of the improved
part would eliminate the need for the repetitive inspections.
Accomplishment of the proposed inspections and installation would be in
accordance with Fairey Hydraulics Limited SB 32-4, Issue 4, dated
January 30, 1990.
Cost Impact
The FAA estimates that 112 airplanes in the U.S. registry would be
affected by the proposed AD, that it would take approximately 13
workhours per airplane to accomplish the proposed action (1 workhour
per inspection and 12 workhours for the installation), and that the
average labor rate is approximately $60 an hour. Parts cost
approximately $6,200 per airplane. Based on these figures, the total
cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$781,760 or $6,980 per airplane.
The proposed inspections are currently required on the 112 affected
airplanes by AD 86-07-02. The proposed AD would not require any
additional inspection requirements over that already required by AD 86-
07-02. In addition, the cost figures referenced above are based on the
presumption that no affected airplane operator has incorporated the
proposed inspection-terminating installation. Pilatus Britten-Norman
does not know the number of parts distributed to the affected airplane
owners/operators. Numerous sets of parts were sent out to the owners/
operators of the affected airplanes, but over the years Pilatus
Britten-Norman has not retained these records.
The FAA's Aging Commuter Aircraft Policy
The intent of the FAA's aging commuter airplane program is to
ensure safe operation of commuter-class airplanes that are in
commercial service without adversely impacting private operators. Of
the approximately 112 airplanes in the U.S. registry that would be
affected by the proposed AD, the FAA has determined that approximately
25 percent are operated in scheduled passenger service by 11 different
operators. A significant number of the remaining 75 percent are
operated in other forms of air transportation such as air cargo and air
taxi.
The proposed action would allow at least 1,000 hours TIS after the
effective date of the AD before mandatory accomplishment of the design
modification (upon the accumulation of 5,000 hours TIS or within the
next 1,000 hours TIS after the effective date of the AD, whichever is
later). The average utilization of the fleet for those airplanes in
commercial commuter service is approximately 25 to 50 hours TIS per
week. Based on these figures, operators of commuter airplanes involved
in commercial operation would have to accomplish the proposed
modification within 5 to 10 calendar months (at the least) after the
proposed AD would become effective. For private owners, who typically
operate between 100 to 200 hours TIS per year, this would allow 5 to 10
years (at the least) before the proposed modification would be
mandatory. The time it would take those in air cargo/air taxi
operations before the proposed action would be mandatory is unknown
because of the wide variation between each airplane used in this
service. The exact numbers would fall somewhere between the average for
commuter operators and private operators.
[[Page 28648]]
Regulatory Flexibility Determination and Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily or
disproportionally burdened by government regulations. The RFA requires
government agencies to determine whether rules would have a
``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities,'' and, in cases where they would, conduct a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis in which alternatives to the rule are considered.
FAA Order 2100.14A, Regulatory Flexibility Criteria and Guidance,
outlines FAA procedures and criteria for complying with the RFA. Small
entities are defined as small businesses and small not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated or airports
operated by small governmental jurisdictions. A ``substantial number''
is defined as a number that is not less than 11 and that is more than
one-third of the small entities subject to a proposed rule, or any
number of small entities judged to be substantial by the rulemaking
official. A ``significant economic impact'' is defined by an annualized
net compliance cost, adjusted for inflation, which is greater than a
threshold cost level for defined entity types.
The entities that would be affected by this AD are mostly in the
portion of Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 4512, Operators of
Aircraft for Hire, classified as ``unscheduled.'' FAA Order 2100.14A
sets the size threshold for small entities operating aircraft in this
category at nine or fewer aircraft owned and the annualized cost
thresholds of at least $4,975 (1996 dollars) for unscheduled operators.
A four-year life for the torque link assembly and capital cost of 15-
percent would establish an annualized cost of $2,445 (1996 dollars).
This is less than 50-percent of the threshold cost of $4,975 per year.
In order to incur costs of at least $4,975, an entity would have to
operate three or more of the airplanes referenced in the proposed AD.
FAA data shows that only five small entities operate three or more of
these airplanes. In addition, this data shows that approximately 60
entities operate the airplanes referenced in the proposed AD, but that
only 15 of these entities (one-fourth) operate two or more of these
airplanes.
Based on this information, less than one-third of the entities
would incur significant operating costs under FAA Order 2100.14A.
Therefore, the proposed AD would not significantly affect a number of
small entities.
A copy of the full Cost Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility
Determination for the proposed action may be examined at the FAA,
Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 96-CE-25-AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,
Missouri.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this 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 adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD) to read as follows:
Pilatus Britten-Norman: Docket No. 96-CE-25-AD.
Applicability: Models BN-2, BN-2A, BN-2A-3, BN-2A-6, BN-2A-8,
BN-2A-2, BN-2A-9, BN-2A-20, BN-2A-21, BN-2A-26, BN-2A-27, BN-2B-20,
BN-2B-21, BN-2B-26, BN-2B-27, and BN-2T airplanes (all serial
numbers), 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.
Compliance: Required as indicated after the effective date of
this AD, unless already accomplished.
To prevent failure of the main landing gear caused by cracks in
the torque link assembly area, which could lead to loss of control
of the airplane during landing operations, accomplish the following:
(a) Prior to further flight after the effective date of this AD
or within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the last
inspection required by AD 86-07-02, whichever occurs later, and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS until the
installations required by paragraph (c) of this AD are accomplished,
inspect the junction of the torque link lug and upper case of all
main landing gear (MLG) torque link assemblies for cracks (using a
10-power magnifying glass or by dye penetrant methods). Accomplish
these inspections in accordance with the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS
section of Fairey Hydraulics Limited Service Bulletin (SB) 32-4,
Issue 4, dated January 30, 1990. Pilatus Britten-Norman SB BN-2/
SB.170, Issue 4, November 16, 1990, references this service
bulletin.
Note 2: These inspections were initially a part of AD 86-07-02,
which applied to the BN2A MK. 111 series airplanes as well as the
airplanes affected by this AD. The ``prior to further flight after
the effective date of this AD'' compliance time was the original
initial compliance time of AD 86-07-02, and is being retained to
provide credit and continuity for already-accomplished and future
inspections.
(b) If any cracks are found during any of the inspections
required by this AD, prior to further flight, replace the MLG torque
link assembly with a Modification A39 MLG torque link assembly in
accordance with the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS section of Fairey
Hydraulics Limited SB No. 32-4, Issue 4, dated January 30, 1990.
(1) Repetitive inspections are no longer required when all MLG
torque assemblies are replaced with Modification A39 MLG torque link
assemblies.
(2) Repetitive inspections may no longer be required on one MLG
torque assembly, but still be required on another if all haven't
been replaced with a Modification A39 MLG torque link assembly.
(c) Upon the accumulation of 5,000 hours TIS or within the next
1,000 hours TIS after
[[Page 28649]]
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, unless
already accomplished as specified in paragraph (b) of this AD,
replace each MLG torque link assembly with a Modification A39 MLG
torque link assembly in accordance with of the ACCOMPLISHMENT
INSTRUCTIONS section of Fairey Hydraulics Limited SB No. 32-4, Issue
4, dated January 30, 1990.
(d) The intervals between the repetitive inspections required by
this AD may be adjusted up to 10 percent of the specified interval
to allow accomplishing these actions along with other scheduled
maintenance on the airplane.
(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 inspection 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, Brussels Aircraft
Certification Division, Europe, Africa, Middle East office, FAA, c/o
American Embassy, 1000 Brussels, Belgium. The request should be
forwarded through an appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may
add comments and then send it to the Manager, Brussels Aircraft
Certification Division.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Brussels Aircraft Certification Division.
(g) All persons affected by this directive may obtain copies of
the documents referred to herein upon request to Fairey Hydraulics
Limited, Claverham, Bristol, England; or Pilatus Britten-Norman
Limited, Bembridge, Isle of Wight, United Kingdom PO35 5PR, as
applicable; or may examine these documents at the FAA, Central
Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E.
12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 19, 1997.
Henry A. Armstrong,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 97-13692 Filed 5-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 97-13691 Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Britten-Norman Ltd. (Formerly Britten-Norman) BN2A MK. 111 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 27, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28644-28646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-13691]
========================================================================
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. 62, No. 101 / Tuesday, May 27, 1997 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 28644]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 86-CE-23-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Britten-Norman Ltd. (Formerly
Britten-Norman) BN2A MK. 111 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to revise AD 86-07-02, which currently
requires repetitively inspecting the junction of the torque link lug
and upper case of the main landing gear (MLG) torque link assemblies
for cracks on Pilatus Britten-Norman Ltd. (Pilatus Britten-Norman) BN-
2A, BN-2B, BN-2T, and BN2A MK. 111 series airplanes, and replacing any
part found cracked with a like part. The proposed AD would remove from
the applicability the BN-2A, BN-2B, and BN-2T series airplanes, and
would retain the repetitive inspection and replacement (if necessary)
requirements of AD 86-07-02 for the BN2A MK. 111 series airplanes. The
proposed AD results from the Federal Aviation Administration's
determination that additional AD action needs to be taken on the BN-2A,
BN-2B, and BN-2T series airplanes. This additional action will be
addressed in a separate AD. The actions specified by the proposed AD
are intended to prevent failure of the main landing gear caused by
cracks in the torque link area, which could lead to loss of control of
the airplane during landing operations.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 2, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 86-CE-23-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 Pilatus Britten-Norman Limited, Bembridge, Isle of Wight, United
Kingdom PO35 5PR; telephone 44-1983 872511; facsimile 44-1983 873246.
This information also may be examined at the Rules Docket at the
address above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tom Rodriguez, Program Officer,
Brussels Aircraft Certification Division, FAA, Europe, Africa, and
Middle East Office, c/o American Embassy, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium;
telephone (32 2) 508.2717; facsimile (32 2) 230.6899; or Mr. S.M.
Nagarajan, Project Officer, Small Airplane Directorate, Airplane
Certification Service, FAA, 1201 Walnut, suite 900, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 426-6932; facsimile (816) 426-2169.
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. 86-CE-23-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 86-CE-23-AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
Discussion
The FAA has determined that reliance on critical repetitive
inspections on aging commuter-class airplanes carries an unnecessary
safety risk when a design change exists that could eliminate or, in
certain instances, reduce the number of those critical inspections. In
determining what inspections are critical, the FAA considers (1) the
safety consequences if the known problem is not detected during the
inspection; (2) the probability of the problem not being detected
during the inspection; (3) whether the inspection area is difficult to
access; and (4) the possibility of damage to an adjacent structure as a
result of the problem.
These factors have led the FAA to establish an aging commuter-class
aircraft policy that requires incorporating a known design change when
it could replace a critical repetitive inspection. With this policy in
mind, the FAA conducted a review of existing AD's that apply to Pilatus
Britten-Norman BN-2A, BN-2B, BN-2T, and BN2A MK. 111 series airplanes.
Assisting the FAA in this review were (1) Pilatus Britten-Norman; (2)
the Regional Airlines Association (RAA); (3) the Civil Aviation
Authority of the United Kingdom; and (4) several operators of the
affected airplanes.
From this review, the FAA has identified AD 86-07-02, Amendment 39-
5382, as one which falls under the FAA's aging aircraft policy. AD 86-
07-02 currently requires repetitively inspecting the junction of the
torque link lug and upper case of the main landing gear (MLG) torque
link assemblies for cracks on Pilatus Britten-Norman BN-2A, BN-2B, BN-
2T, and BN2A MK. 111 series airplanes, and replacing any cracked part.
Pilatus Britten-Norman has developed a modification that, when
incorporated, would eliminate the need for the
[[Page 28645]]
repetitive inspection requirement of AD 86-07-02 for the Pilatus
Britten-Norman BN-2A, BN-2B, and BN-2T series airplanes. The
requirements of AD 86-07-02 should still apply for the Pilatus Britten-
Norman BN2A MK. 111 series airplanes.
Applicable Service Information
Fairey Hydraulics Limited has issued Service Bulletin (SB) 32-7 ,
Issue 3, dated January 30, 1990, and Fairey Hydraulics Limited SB 32-10
, Issue 2, dated November 10, 1992. These SB's include procedures for
inspecting the junction of the torque link lug and upper case of the
MLG torque link assemblies on Pilatus Britten-Norman BN2A MK. 111
series airplanes. Pilatus Britten-Norman SB BN-2/SB. 173, Issue 3,
dated November 16, 1990, references Fairey Hydraulic Limited SB 32-7;
and Pilatus Britten-Norman SB BN-2/SB.209, Issue 1, dated November 30,
1992, references Fairey Hydraulic Limited SB 32-10.
The FAA's Determination
The FAA has examined all available information related to this
subject matter and has determined that:
AD 86-07-02 should be revised to remove the BN-2A, BN-2B,
and BN-2T series airplanes from the applicability of the AD (the BN2A
MK. 111 series airplanes should still apply); and
Separate AD action should be taken for the Pilatus
Britten-Norman BN-2A, BN-2B, and BN-2T series airplanes to require a
modification to the main landing gear torque link assembly.
Explanation of the Provisions of the Proposed AD
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop in other Pilatus Britten-Norman BN2A MK. 111 series
airplanes of the same type design, the proposed AD would revise AD 86-
07-02 by removing the BN-2A, BN-2B, and BN-2T series airplanes from the
applicability of that AD. The requirement of repetitively inspecting
the junction of the torque link lug and upper case of the MLG torque
link assemblies would be retained for the BN2A MK. 111 series
airplanes. The FAA will propose separate AD action for the BN-2A and
BN-2T series airplanes to require a modification that, when
incorporated, would eliminate the repetitive inspection requirement
currently required by AD 86-07-02. Accomplishment of the proposed
inspections and would be accomplished in accordance with the previously
referenced service bulletins.
Cost Impact
The FAA estimates that nine airplanes in the U.S. registry would be
affected by the proposed AD, that it would take approximately one
workhour per airplane to accomplish the proposed initial inspection,
and that the average labor rate is approximately $60 an hour. Based on
these figures, the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S.
operators is estimated to be $540 or $60 per airplane. This figure only
takes into account the cost of the proposed initial inspection and does
not take into account the cost of the proposed repetitive inspections.
The FAA has no way of determining the number of repetitive inspections
each of the owners/operators would incur over the life of the affected
airplanes.
In addition, the proposed inspections are currently required on the
nine affected airplanes. The proposed AD would not require any
additional actions over that already required by AD 86-07-02.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this 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) 86-07-02, Amendment 39-5382, and by adding a new AD to read as
follows:
Pilatus Britten-Norman Ltd.: Docket No. 86-CE-23-AD. Revises AD 86-
07-02, Amendment 39-5382.
Applicability: Models MK. 111, BN2A MK. 111-2, and BN2A MK. 111-
3 airplanes (all serial numbers), 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.
Compliance: Required prior to further flight after the effective
date of this AD (see Note 2) or within 100 hours time-in-service
(TIS) after the last inspection accomplished in accordance with AD
86-07-02, whichever occurs later, and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 100 hours TIS.
Note 2: The ``prior to further flight after the effective date
of this AD'' compliance time was the original initial compliance
time of AD 86-07-02, and is being retained to provide credit and
continuity for already-accomplished and future inspections.
To prevent failure of the main landing gear caused by cracks in
the torque link assembly area, which could lead to loss of control
of the airplane during landing operations, accomplish the following:
(a) Inspect the junction of the torque link lug and upper case
for cracks (using a 10-power magnifying glass or by dye penetrant
methods) in accordance with Fairey Hydraulics Limited Service
Bulletin (SB) 32-7, Issue 3, dated January 30, 1990, or Fairey
Hydraulics SB 32-10, Issue 2, dated November 10, 1992, as
applicable. Pilatus Britten-Norman SB BN-2/SB. 173, Issue 3, dated
November 16, 1990, references Fairey Hydraulic Limited SB 32-7; and
Pilatus Britten-Norman SB BN-2/SB.209, Issue 1, dated November 30,
1992, references Fairey Hydraulic Limited SB 32-10.
(b) If cracked parts are found during any of the inspections
required by this AD, prior to further flight, replace the cracked
parts
[[Page 28646]]
with airworthy parts in accordance with the applicable maintenance
manual.
(c) If the landing gear is replaced, only equal pairs of the
same manufacturer are approved as replacement parts. Mixing of
different manufacturer landing gears is not authorized.
(d) The intervals between the repetitive inspections required by
this AD may be adjusted up to 10 percent of the specified interval
to allow accomplishing these actions along with other scheduled
maintenance on the airplane.
(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 inspection 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, Brussels Aircraft
Certification Division, Europe, Africa, Middle East office, FAA, c/o
American Embassy, 1000 Brussels, Belgium. The request should be
forwarded through an appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may
add comments and then send it to the Manager, Brussels Aircraft
Certification Division. Alternative methods of compliance approved
for AD 86-07-02 are considered approved as alternative methods of
compliance for this AD.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Brussels Aircraft Certification Division.
(g) All persons affected by this directive may obtain copies of
the documents referred to herein upon request to Fairey Hydraulics
Limited, Claverham, Bristol, England; or Pilatus Britten-Norman
Limited, Bembridge, Isle of Wight, United Kingdom PO35 5PR, as
applicable; or may examine these documents at the FAA, Central
Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E.
12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
(h) This amendment revises AD 86-07-02, Amendment 39-5382.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 19, 1997.
Henry A. Armstrong,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 97-13691 Filed 5-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.