issue-1996-04-23•Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-23
Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-23
issue-1996-04-23Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-23Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 96-9992 Establishment of Class D Airspace; Vancouver, Washington
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17826-17828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9992]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ANM-19]
Establishment of Class D Airspace; Vancouver, Washington
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action establishes Class D airspace at Pearson Field,
Vancouver, Washington. This action is necessary to
[[Page 17827]]
enhance safety within the area which was previously excluded from the
Portland International Airport (PDX) Class C airspace and commonly
referred to as the Pearson Cutout. A minor change is also being made to
the airport name, formerly called Pearson Airpark, and to the
geographic coordinates of Pearson Field, Vancouver, Washington.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 20, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James C. Frala, Operations Branch, ANM-532.4, Federal Aviation
Administration, Docket No. 95-ANM-19, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056; telephone number: (206) 227-2535.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On November 9, 1995, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Class D
airspace at Pearson Field, Vancouver, Washington (60 FR 56539). This
proposal was the product of an airspace and procedural review of new
instrument approach procedures to PDX and an analysis of the Pearson
Field/Portland International utilization of airspace west of PDX. This
rule was proposed to minimize potential conflicts and mitigate wake
turbulence concerns. The proposed establishment of Class D airspace at
Pearson Field requires pilots operating in the airspace to be in
communication with the controlling Air traffic facility so that traffic
information and wake turbulence advisories can be issued. Interested
parties were invited to participate in the rulemaking proceeding by
submitting written comments on the proposal. This action is the same as
the proposal except the airport name and coordinates have been changed
in this document to reflect information published in the National
Flight Data Digest Number 226, dated November 24, 1995. Additionally, a
change is made to reflect the dates and times the Class D airspace area
is effective.
Discussion of Comments
A total of 17 individuals submitted written comments to FR Doc. 95-
27830, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 95-ANM-19. Additionally,
verbal comments were expressed by some of the approximately 350 persons
attending informal aviation gatherings. The FAA considered these
comments in the adoption of this rule. Comments submitted on NPRM 95-
ANM-19 reflect the views of a broad spectrum of the aviation public
including individuals and organizations representing commercial and
general aviation pilots. Organizations that commented include Air Line
Pilots Association (ALPA); Delta Air Lines, Inc.; Port of Portland;
Experimental Aircraft Association; The City of Vancouver, Washington;
Clark County Airport Owners and Managers Association; and the
Washington Pilots Association.
Of the 17 who submitted written comments to the docket, 6
commenters supported and 11 commenters opposed the establishment of
Class D airspace. Of the 6 supporting comments, 5 commenters agreed
that this action would promote safety for users at both PDX and Pearson
Field.
One commenter (ALPA) would support the establishment of Class D
airspace if additional restrictions, such as requiring an operating
transponder, segregating Pearson Field traffic from PDX traffic, and
lowering the Pearson Field traffic pattern altitude to 700 feet mean
sea level, were included in the proposed action. These suggested
restrictions were evaluated and determined to be excessive and not
necessary for safety. Lowering the Pearson Field pattern altitude to
700 feet would place pilots in closer proximity to terrain and to
people and property on the ground. This option was rejected because it
contradicts the purpose of the rule which is to enhance safety.
Of the 11 commenters opposing the rule, one commenter felt that the
proposed action was an attempt to close Pearson Field. The FAA did not
consider closing Pearson Field as an option. Rather, the FAA is
committed to mitigating airspace management issues when airports are in
close proximity to each other. The purpose of this rulemaking is to
allow Pearson Field to continue to operate safely in close proximity to
its larger neighbor. Three commenters felt that the proposed action
would introduce jet traffic to a new route over Pearson Field and in
close proximity to downtown Vancouver, Washington. Four commenters
expressed concern for increased jet noise. The establishment of Class D
airspace introduces a communication requirement only. No new jet routes
will result from this action and this airspace action does not alter
existing flight tracks. Jet noise will not be altered by this rule. Two
commenters suggested that the approaches to PDX should be offset to the
south to avoid conflicts in traffic flows. This option is not viable
for two reasons. First, the rising terrain and obstructions southwest
of the airport create serious safety obstacles to safe instrument
approaches. Second, if it was feasible to offset the approaches to the
south, the approach minimums would be very high due to the terrain and
the fact that the approach would not be aligned with the runway. As a
result, offsetting the approaches would have an adverse effect on
airport capacity. Three commenters expressed concerns for wake
turbulence generated by aircraft landing and departing PDX. The FAA
shares these concerns as demonstrated by this rule that is intended to
facilitate the transfer of wake turbulence information to Pearson Field
users. In addition to the traffic and wake turbulence advisories
resulting from this rule, the FAA has agreed to assist in presentation
of wake turbulence training for Pearson Field operators and to publish
cautionary advisories where appropriate.
Two commenters were opposed to the action due to the additional
cockpit workload of radio communications and the financial burden of
acquiring a radio. The FAA recognizes that the requirement for radio
communications will have some impact on users at Pearson Field,
particularly those who do not have radio-equipped aircraft. However,
due to the proximity of the two airports and the need to minimize
potential conflicts and mitigate wake turbulence concerns, some
airspace safety change is necessary. Prior to this rulemaking, FAA Air
Traffic and Flight Standards personnel met with customer
representatives for Pearson Field and PDX to seek solutions and
minimize impacts on users at the airports. It was generally agreed that
establishing Class D airspace at Pearson Field would satisfy safety
concerns while imposing the least restrictions on users. Furthermore,
the FAA and Pearson pilots are developing procedures for no-radio
aircraft operations at Pearson Field.
The Clark County Airport Owners and Managers Association objects to
this proposed action suggesting it violates their constitutional
rights. They claim Grandfather Rights to the airspace in and around
their airports because those airports were in existence many years
prior to PDX. Title 49 United States Code, section 40103 charges the
FAA with the responsibility to regulate the use of airspace for
efficiency and safety. As mentioned previously, the purpose of this
rule is to preserve safe operations at Pearson. This rule does not
address the operation of PDX or the effects of that airport's
operations on surrounding airports other than Pearson.
One commenter provided comments that were unrelated to the
proposal.
During the comment period, verbal responses relating to this
proposed airspace action were heard at several
[[Page 17828]]
aviation gatherings. Instructions and the appropriate address for
submitting written comments were disseminated to the approximately 360
pilots at those gatherings who expressed an interest in this
rulemaking. Verbal comments from those gatherings were noted. In
general, most pilots of aircraft equipped with electrical systems
expressed agreement with the rule. There was a suggestion that a
control tower may be necessary at Pearson. However, others felt a
control tower was neither needed nor wanted. In fact, the activity
level at Pearson does not approach the level established by the FAA to
support a control tower. Some expressed concern that traffic at Pearson
would be delayed for PDX traffic either by denying access to the Class
D airspace for aircraft arriving at Pearson, or by requiring aircraft
departing Pearson Field to hold on the ground until separation from PDX
traffic could be achieved. Separation services are not provided for
aircraft operating under visual flight rules in Class D airspace. Air
Traffic will not be controlling the flow of aircraft arriving at or
departing from Pearson.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of Federal Aviation Regulations
establishes Class D airspace at Pearson Field, Vancouver, Washington.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (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) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace
* * * * *
ANM WA D Vancouver, WA
Vancouver, Pearson Field, WA
(lat. 45 deg.37'14''N, long. 122 deg.39'23''W)
Portland International Airport, OR
(lat. 45 deg.35'19''N, long 122 deg.35'51''W)
That airspace extending upward from the surface to but not
including 1,100 feet MSL in an area bounded by a line beginning at
the point where the 019 deg. bearing from Pearson Field intersects
the 5-mile arc from Portland International Airport extending
southeast to a point 1\1/2\ miles east of Pearson Field on the
extended centerline of Runway 8/26, and thence south to the north
shore of the Columbia River, thence west via the north shore of the
Columbia River to the 5-mile arc from Portland International Airport
and thence clockwise via the 5-mile arc to point of beginning. This
Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and
times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective
date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the
Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *
Issued in Seattle, Washington, on April 8, 1996.
Richard E. Prang,
Acting Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Division, Northwest Mountain
Region.
[FR Doc. 96-9992 Filed 4-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9974 Preservation and Protection of and Access to the Presidential Historical Materials of the Nixon Administration; Amendment of Public Access Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17842-17849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9974]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
36 CFR Part 1275
RIN 3095-AA59
Preservation and Protection of and Access to the Presidential
Historical Materials of the Nixon Administration; Amendment of Public
Access Regulations
AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration.
ACTION: Final rule and interim final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule revises the procedures to be followed by the
National Archives and Records Administration (``NARA'') for preserving
and protecting the Presidential historical materials of the Nixon
Administration, for providing public access to these materials, and for
providing for the reproduction of the Nixon White House tape
recordings, based on a Settlement Agreement reached through mediation
among Public Citizen and Stanley I. Kutler, the National Archives and
Records Administration, and William E. Griffin and John H. Taylor, co-
executors of the Estate of Richard M. Nixon, parties to Stanley I.
Kutler and Public Citizen v. John W. Carlin, Archivist of the United
States, and William E. Griffin and John H. Taylor, Co-executors of
Richard M. Nixon's Estate, Civ. A. No. 92-0662-NHJ (D.D.C.) (Johnson,
J.). Furthermore, the final rule clarifies various terms that appear in
36 CFR Part 1275. This final rule and interim final rule will affect
the heirs of former President Nixon and other individuals whose names
appear in the materials, as well as members of the general public
interested in conducting research regarding those materials.
DATES: The effective date for this final rule and interim final rule is
May 23, 1996.
Comments on the amendments to Secs. 1275.42, 1275.48, and 1275.64
must be received by close of business June 24, 1996. NARA will issue a
final rule confirming or further amending these amendments after this
comment period closes.
ADDRESSES: All comments must be submitted in writing to the Regulation
Comment Desk, Policy and Planning Division (PIRM-POL), Room 3200,
National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road,
College Park, MD 20740-6001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Allard at (301) 713-6730.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Professor Stanley Kutler and Public Citizen
commenced an action against the Archivist of the United States on March
19, 1992, by filing a complaint under the Administrative Procedure Act,
5 U.S.C. 701, et seq. The complaint alleged that the Archivist had
failed to carry out his obligations under the Presidential Recordings
and Materials Preservation Act of 1974 (``PRMPA''), 44 U.S.C. 2111
note, concerning the release of approximately 3,700 hours of tape
recordings made during the Presidency of Richard M. Nixon. Thereafter,
former President Nixon intervened and filed cross-claims; after his
death in 1994, his co-executors were substituted in his place.
During the course of the litigation, which entailed substantial
discovery and motions, the principal disputes revolved around the issue
of how to reconcile the disclosure requirements of the PRMPA and the
privacy interests of Mr. Nixon and his family, as well as the other
interests legally protected by the PRMPA. A major portion of the
controversy centered on the issue of the timing of releases of the
tapes (all at once or in segments), and whether the releases could be
made before some or all of the tape segments found to be private or
personal were returned to Mr. Nixon or his estate as required by law.
Following the release of approximately 60 hours of tape recordings
subpoenaed by the Watergate Special Prosecution Force (``WSPF'') during
its investigation, NARA had decided that the best way to proceed with
the release of the body of the approximately 3,700 hours of Nixon White
House tape recordings was to release Watergate-related segments of the
tape recordings in small monthly groupings on an ongoing basis. The
first of these releases was noticed in the Federal Register on April 2,
1993, 58 FR 17433, and took place on May 17, 1993, without any
objections from affected parties.
The second and third releases were noticed in the Federal Register
on June 3, 1993, and July 2, 1993, to take place on July 15, 1993
(later extended to August 13, 1993), and August 26, 1993, respectively.
58 FR 31548 (June 3, 1993); 58 FR 35983 (July 2, 1993).
[[Page 17843]]
Former President Nixon raised certain objections to these proposed
releases. When NARA rejected former President Nixon's contention that
those releases should not go forward, he sought relief in the district
court. On August 9, 1993, Judge Royce Lamberth of the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order in the
Kutler case preliminarily enjoining NARA from carrying out the releases
of Watergate-related tape segments scheduled for release on August 13
and 26, 1993, pending (1) segregation and return to former President
Nixon of all private or personal conversations on the tape recordings;
and (2) processing of the tape recordings as a single ``integral file
segment'' before release to the public.
On March 25, 1994, the proposed amendments to the current PRMPA
regulations were published for public comment at 59 FR 14128. At that
time, NARA believed that the proposed amendments were required to
clarify various terms that appear in 36 CFR Part 1275; clarify the
nature of the archival processing being conducted on the Nixon
Presidential historical materials; and provide for the reproduction of
the available Nixon White House tape recordings.
During the comment period, originally 60 days but extended by an
additional 30 days, 59 FR 27257 (May 26, 1994), NARA received comments
from eight individuals and organizations in response to these proposed
regulations. The comments consisted of both objections to and support
for the proposed amendments, although many of the comments were
generally supportive of the proposed regulatory changes. The Nixon
estate submitted extensive comments objecting to the proposed
amendments.
The Kutler case was referred to a court-appointed mediator, and
most of the issues were resolved by the parties in a Settlement
Agreement, which is attached hereto as Appendix A to 36 CFR Part 1275.
As a result of the mediation, NARA is amending certain of its
regulations as set forth below. Other comments have been incorporated
into this final and interim final rule. Although NARA does not take a
position as to whether it is necessary to resubmit the proposed changes
to the regulations as a result of the Settlement Agreement, NARA
nevertheless is publishing as an interim final rule for a 60-day
comment period those sections of Part 1275 which have been revised in
accordance with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement reached
among the parties. Those sections of the proposed rule published on
March 25, 1994, that have not been further revised due to the
Settlement Agreement are issued as a final rule. No additional comments
will be considered on these sections, which include 36 CFR 1275.16(e)
and (g), 1275.20, 1275.46, 1275.56, 1275.66 and 1275.70. NARA had
previously proposed to amend Sec. 1275.16(b), but now has decided that
an amendment to this section is not necessary. NARA is amending the
current regulations in accordance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.
Interim Final Rule Provisions (Sections Affected by the Settlement
Agreement)
The following amended sections of 36 CFR Part 1275 are being issued
as an interim final rule to allow public comment.
NARA had previously proposed to amend Sec. 1275.42(a) to clarify
the manner in which NARA intends to proceed with the archival
processing and release of the tape recordings and all other textual
Nixon Presidential historical materials. To address these concerns, the
proposed amendments to Sec. 1275.42(a) would have allowed the release
of the tape recordings in groupings that would not necessarily have
constituted ``integral file segments,'' but which would have permitted
the opening of portions of the tape recordings without the need for the
approximately 3,700 hours to be released at once. The current
regulations provide that Nixon White House materials will be disclosed
to the public in ``integral file segments.''
As a result of the Settlement Agreement in the Kutler case, NARA is
now amending Sec. 1275.42(a) to describe specifically the schedule for
the opening of the approximately 3,700 hours of tape recordings, as
well as the procedures for allowing interested and affected parties--
including the Nixon estate--the opportunity to review (and object as
appropriate to) a particular segment of tape recordings being proposed
for opening. The Settlement Agreement also takes into account the fact
that due to the extensive nature of the tape recordings collection, it
would be impossible for the Nixon estate to review all portions of the
tape recordings proposed for opening within the allotted 30-day period.
As a result, the current revised amendments to Sec. 1275.42(a)
incorporate a procedure whereby the Nixon estate will be given
sufficient lead time to review each segment of tape recordings NARA
proposes for opening.
In addition, the previously proposed amendments to Sec. 1275.42(a)
provided that the Archivist was free to release segments of the tape
recordings prior to transferring private or personal material in
accordance with current Sec. 1275.48, thereby allowing NARA to continue
processing and opening Watergate- related segments of the tape
recordings at the earliest reasonable date, in accordance with its
statutory and regulatory responsibility. Based on the Settlement
Agreement in the Kutler case, however, NARA is now amending
Sec. 1275.42(a)(2) to allow for identification of additional private or
personal materials located during the rereview of the tape recordings
and return to the Nixon estate at approximately the time that NARA
proposes each segment for public release.
In accordance with the Settlement Agreement in the Kutler case,
NARA is amending Sec. 1275.44 by adding a new subsection (e) which sets
forth the precise procedures for the Nixon estate to raise any
objections to those tape recordings that NARA has designated as
relating to abuses of governmental power, as well as the standard to be
applied by the specially appointed review panel in reviewing those
objections. For those segments designated abuses of governmental power,
the Nixon estate has agreed to accept the review panel's decisions as
binding, thereby foregoing its right to appeal decisions regarding its
objections in the normal course pursuant to Sec. 1275.46. In addition,
although the Nixon estate has not waived its appeal rights available
for any objections with respect to the remaining tape segments,
subsection (e) provides that the Nixon estate may, at any time, elect
to use the procedures used for raising objections to the abuses of
governmental power tape segments. Subsection (e) also specifies the
standard that will be applied by the specially appointed review panel
in reviewing the objections to the remaining tape recordings should the
Nixon estate elect to use the alternative procedure.
NARA is amending Sec. 1275.48(a) to make clear that no portion of
the original tape recordings or master preservation copy is to be
returned to the heirs of former President Nixon. NARA's position is
that it is complying with the PRMPA by retaining the entire original
tape recordings and a master preservation copy containing these
materials. This is one of the issues in the Kutler case and the parties
to the Settlement Agreement have agreed to resolve this issue,
including the validity of this particular section and of
Sec. 1275.64(e), in the courts. NARA is also amending this section to
make clear that it restricts access to all private or personal material
on the original tape
[[Page 17844]]
recordings and master preservation copy that NARA maintains.
NARA had previously proposed to amend Sec. 1275.64 to include a
provision allowing for the reproduction of tape recordings opened to
the public. The issue of whether to provide copies of tape recordings
has been considered by NARA on several occasions. At the time the
current regulations were written, NARA decided to maintain its prior
position of not allowing copies of tape recordings, although it
specifically stated that this position would be reviewed periodically.
51 FR 7228 (Feb. 28, 1986). In accordance with the Settlement Agreement
in the Kutler case, Sec. 1275.64 is being amended to state that copies
of the tapes will be made available following the public release of the
last of the tape segments contemplated in Sec. 1275.42(a). However, if
the last tape segment is not released by December 31, 1999, NARA will
allow members of the public to obtain copies only of the abuses of
governmental power tapes, together with any other tapes publicly
released as of the effective date of the Settlement Agreement,
beginning January 1, 2000. If the releases contemplated in
Sec. 1275.42(a) are not completed by December 31, 2002, NARA will,
beginning January 1, 2003, allow members of the public to obtain copies
of all tapes that have been made available to the public by that date
and tapes that subsequently become available, as they are released.
NARA is also adding Sec. 1275.64(e) to make clear that the Archivist
will produce and maintain a master preservation copy of the original
tape recordings for preservation purposes.
Final Rule Provisions
The following amendments to 36 CFR Part 1275 are being adopted as a
final rule. No comments will be accepted on these provisions.
Section 1275.16(e) clarifies the nomenclature used throughout the
regulations and distinguishes between ``Archivist,'' defined as the
Archivist of the United States or his or her designated agent, and
``archivist,'' as defined in the current subsection, i.e., as an
employee of NARA, who, by education or experience, is specially trained
in archival science.
Section 1275.16(g) clarifies the definition of ``archival
processing'' to ensure that nothing in the subsection creates any
obligation on the part of the Archivist to perform any one particular
archival processing task listed in the subsection. In so doing, NARA
intends to make clear that transcripts of the tape recordings need not
be made. Although the current regulations indicate that the processing
of the Nixon White House materials may undergo one or more of several
archival processing phases, including the preparation of transcripts,
NARA does not believe that the regulations intended to obligate the
processing archivists to transcribe all of the approximately 3,700
hours of tape recordings before releasing them to the public. NARA does
not believe this is an obligation because the tapes are the original
record. NARA has created tape logs to serve as a subject guide to the
tape recordings. NARA chose to create tape logs instead of
transcriptions because NARA has estimated that it would take at least
400,000 hours of staff time to accomplish such transcriptions. In
addition, because of the sound quality of the tape recordings, NARA
could not guarantee the accuracy of the transcriptions. Furthermore,
the definition of ``archival processing'' in Sec. 1275.16(g) has been
expanded to reflect the archival processing of the Nixon Presidential
historical materials that actually has been taking place.
Section 1275.20 is amended to be consistent with the amended
definition of ``Archivist'' set forth in amended Sec. 1275.16(e).
Sections 1275.46(d) and 1275.46(f) are amended to be consistent
with the amended definition of ``Archivist'' set forth in amended
Sec. 1275.16(e).
Section 1275.64(b) is also amended to be consistent with the
nomenclature distinction between ``Archivist'' and ``archivist'' as set
forth in Sec. 1275.16(e).
Section 1275.66(a) is amended to accommodate two different
possibilities with respect to the reproduction of released Nixon
materials other than tape recordings: copying by researchers on self-
service government copiers; and copying by contract vendors at the
request of NARA. This change reflects not only current practice at the
Nixon Presidential Materials Staff, but common practice at other
Presidential libraries within the NARA system as well as NARA
regulations regarding copying of archival documents.
Sections 1275.70(a) and 1275.70(b) are amended to be consistent
with the nomenclature distinction between ``Archivist'' and
``archivist'' as set forth in Sec. 1275.16(e).
Typographical corrections are made to Sec. 1275.46(i) and
Sec. 1275.56.
Other
NARA has issued these regulations as an interim final rule under
the good cause exception to the Administrative Procedures Act. NARA
believes that the proper execution of the agency's function--in this
case, the release of the Nixon Presidential historical materials at the
earliest reasonable date--requires prompt implementation of the
amendments to Part 1275, including the provisions that have been
modified by the Settlement Agreement. Therefore, NARA finds it in the
public interest to issue these regulations as an interim final rule.
The amendments to 36 CFR Part 1275 are not a significant regulatory
action for purposes of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. As
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, it is hereby certified that
these regulatory amendments will not have a significant impact on small
business entities. For purposes of Title II, Subtitle E of Public Law
104-121, this rule is not a major rule as defined in section 804 of the
act.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 1275
Archives and Records
For the reasons set forth in the preamble above, Part 1275 of Title
36 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 1275--PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION OF AND ACCESS TO THE
PRESIDENTIAL HISTORICAL MATERIALS OF THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION
1. The authority citation for part 1275 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 102(a) of the National Archives and Records
Administration Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-497; 44 U.S.C. 2104; and
sections 103 and 104 of the Presidential Recordings and Materials
Preservation Act, 88 Stat. 1695; 44 U.S.C. 2111 note.
2. Section 1275.16 is amended by revising paragraphs (e) and (g) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1275.16 Definitions.
* * * * *
(e) Archivist. The term ``Archivist'' shall mean the Archivist of
the United States or his designated agent. The term ``archivist'' shall
mean an employee of the National Archives and Records Administration
who, by education or experience, is specially trained in archival
science.
* * * * *
(g) Archival processing. The term ``archival processing'' may
include the following general acts performed by archivists with respect
to the Presidential historical materials: Shelving boxes of documents
in chronological, alphabetical, numerical or other sequence; surveying
and developing a location register and cross-index of the boxes;
arranging materials; refoldering and reboxing the documents and
affixing labels; producing finding
[[Page 17845]]
aids such as folder title lists, scope and content notes, biographical
data, and series descriptions; rewinding, duplicating and preserving
the original tape recordings; enhancing the tape recordings on which
the conversations are wholly or partially unintelligible so that
extraneous noises may be filtered out; producing general subject matter
logs of the tape recordings; reproducing and transcribing tape
recordings; reviewing the materials to identify items that appear
subject to restriction; identifying items in poor physical condition
and assuring their preservation; identifying materials requiring
further processing; and preparation for public access of all materials
which are not subject to restriction.
* * * * *
3. Section 1275.20 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1275.20 Responsibility.
The Archivist is responsible for the preservation and protection of
the Nixon Presidential historical materials.
4. Section 1275.42 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1275.42 Processing period; notice of proposed opening.
(a) (1) The archivists will conduct archival processing of those
materials other than tape recordings to prepare them for public access.
In processing the materials, the archivists will give priority to
segregating private or personal materials and transferring them to
their proprietary or commemorative owner in accordance with
Sec. 1275.48. In conducting such archival processing, the archivists
will restrict portions of the materials pursuant to Secs. 1275.50 and
1275.52. All materials other than tape recordings to which reference is
made in Sec. 1275.64 will be prepared for public access and released
subject to restrictions or outstanding claims or petitions seeking such
restrictions. The Archivist will open for public access each integral
file segment of materials upon completion of archival processing of
that segment.
(2) The archivists will conduct archival processing of the tape
recordings to prepare them for public access in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Settlement Agreement (see Appendix A to
this part). In conducting the archival processing of the tape
recordings, the archivists will restrict segments of the tape
recordings pursuant to Secs. 1275.50 and 1275.52. The tape segments
which consist of abuses of governmental power information, as defined
in Sec. 1275.16(c), will be given priority processing by the archivists
and will be prepared for public access and released following review
and resolution of objections from the Nixon estate and other interested
parties as set forth in the Settlement Agreement (see Appendix A to
this Part). After the tape segments which consist of abuses of
governmental power information have been released, the archivists will
conduct archival processing of those tape recordings which were taped
in the Cabinet Room, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, Appendix
A to this Part. Following release of the Cabinet Room tape recordings,
the remaining tape recordings will be prepared for public access and
released in five segments in accordance with the schedule set forth in
the Settlement Agreement. In addition, NARA will identify and return
any additional private or personal segments to the Nixon estate, at
approximately the time that NARA proposes each segment for public
release.
* * * * *
5. Section 1275.44 is amended by adding new paragraph (e) to read
as follows:
Sec. 1275.44 Rights and privileges; right to a fair trial.
* * * * *
(e)(1) In place of the right to make all other objections with
respect to the tape segments that NARA has designated as abuses of
governmental power materials, the Nixon estate may object to their
release only on the ground that such designation by NARA is clearly
inconsistent with the term ``abuses of governmental power'' as used in
Sec. 104(a)(1) of the Presidential Recordings and Materials
Preservation Act (PRMPA) and defined in Sec. 1275.16(c), as qualified
by Sec. 1275.50(b). Any such objection may not be based on isolated
instances of alleged failure by NARA to apply the appropriate review
standard, but only on a pattern of misapplication of the requirements
of the PRMPA and its implementing regulations. Further, any such
objection must be accompanied by specific examples of alleged review
errors and contain sufficient information to enable the review panel of
three Presidential Library archivists appointed by the Archivist, as
described in the Settlement Agreement, Appendix A to this Part, to
locate those examples readily.
(2) If an objection is made by the Nixon estate to the abuses of
governmental power tape segments, the matter shall be immediately
referred to a panel of three Presidential Library archivists appointed
by the Archivist as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, Appendix A
to this Part. The decision of the panel shall be either that the Nixon
estate's objection is sustained or that it is rejected. The decision
shall include a brief statement of the panel's reasons, but it need not
include an item-by-item determination. In deciding whether the
designation by NARA of the material proposed to be released is clearly
inconsistent with the definition of ``abuses of governmental power'',
the panel shall consider whether the release would seriously injure
legitimate interests of identifiable individuals, whether the errors
suggest a pattern of misinterpretation, and any other factor that bears
on the issue of whether NARA's designation of material as relating to
``abuses of governmental power'' was reasonable, considered as a whole.
The panel's decision shall be final and binding on all parties to the
Kutler litigation, and no party may exercise any right to appeal to any
person, board, or court that might otherwise be available.
(3) The Nixon estate may, at any time, elect to use the procedures
outlined in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section for the tape
recordings other than the abuses of governmental power segments, except
that the standard under which objections shall be made by the Nixon
estate, and under which the review panel shall decide their merits, is
whether the release taken as a whole is plainly inconsistent with the
requirements of the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation
Act of 1974 and these regulations. If the Nixon estate elects to use
the procedures in paragraph 1 of the Settlement Agreement (Appendix A
to this Part) in place of the provisions in paragraphs 4 (b) and (d)
and 5(c) of the Settlement Agreement for a tape segment, the estate
cannot subsequently revert back to the formal objection process set
forth in this section for that tape segment.
Sec. 1275.46 [Amended]
6. Section 1275.46 is amended by removing in paragraph (d) and
paragraph (f), wherever it appears, the term ``Archivist of the United
States'' and adding in its place the term ``Archivist,'' and by
removing in paragraph (i)(2) the term ``reasonbly'' and adding in its
place the term ``reasonably.''
7. Section 1275.48 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1275.48 Transfer of materials.
(a) The Archivist will transfer sole custody and use of those
materials determined to be private or personal, or
[[Page 17846]]
to be neither related to abuses of governmental power nor otherwise of
general historical significance, to former President Nixon's estate,
or, when appropriate and after notifying the Nixon estate, to the
former staff member having primary proprietary or commemorative
interest in the materials; however, no physical part of any original
tape recording or a master preservation copy to which reference is made
in Sec. 1275.64 shall be transferred to the heirs of former President.
NARA will maintain the original tape recordings and a master
preservation copy, including the private and personal segments, in a
manner consistent with the PRMPA and these regulations and will
restrict access to all private or personal material on the originals
and the master preservation copy.
* * * * *
Sec. 1275.56 [Amended]
8. Section 1275.56 is amended by removing the term
``adminsitrative'' and replacing it with the term ``administrative.''
9. Section 1275.64 is amended by removing in paragraph (b) the term
``Archivists'' and replacing it with the term ``archivists'' and adding
new paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 1275.64 Reproductions of tape recordings of Presidential
conversations.
* * * * *
(d) The reproduction for members of the public of the reference
copies of the available tape recordings described in paragraph (a) of
this section will be permitted as follows: Copies of tape recordings
will be made available following the public release of the last of the
tape segments contemplated in Sec. 1275.42(a). If the releases
contemplated in Sec. 1275.42(a) are not completed by December 31, 1999,
NARA will, beginning January 1, 2000, allow members of the public to
obtain copies only of the abuses of governmental power tapes, together
with any other tapes publicly released as of the effective date of the
Settlement Agreement. If the releases contemplated in Sec. 1275.42(a)
are not completed by December 31, 2002, NARA will, beginning January 1,
2003, allow members of the public to obtain copies of all tapes that
have been made available to the public by that date and tapes that
subsequently become available as they are released. Such copying will
be controlled by NARA or its designated contractor. The fees for the
reproduction of the tape recordings under this section shall be those
prescribed in the schedule set forth in part 1258 of this chapter or
pertinent successor regulation, as that schedule is amended from time
to time.
(e) The Archivist shall produce and maintain a master preservation
copy of the original tape recordings for preservation purposes.
10. Section 1275.66 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1275.66 Reproduction and authentication of other materials.
(a) Copying of materials other than tape recordings described in
Sec. 1275.64 may be done by NARA, by a contractor designated by NARA,
or by researchers using self-service copiers. Such self-service copying
shall be done in accordance with the NARA policy on self-service
copying set forth at 36 CFR 1254.71, to ensure that such copying will
not harm the materials or disrupt reference activities.
* * * * *
Sec. 1275.70 [Amended]
11. Section 1275.70 is amended by removing in paragraph (a) the
term ``an Archivist'' and adding in its place the term ``an archivist''
and by removing in paragraph (b) the term ``NARA Archivists'' and
adding in its place the term ``NARA archivists.''
* * * * * *
12. Appendix A to Part 1275 is added to read as follows:
Appenidx A--Settlement Agreement
Settlement Agreement filed April 12, 1996, in Stanley I. Kutler
and Public Citizen v. John W. Carlin, Archivist of the United
States, and William E. Griffin and John H. Taylor, Co-executors of
Richard M. Nixon's Estate, Civil Action No. 92-0662-NHJ (D.D.C.)
(Johnson, J.)
Settlement Agreement
This Settlement Agreement (``Agreement'') is made by and entered
into among plaintiffs Stanley I. Kutler and Public Citizen;
defendant/cross-claim defendant John W. Carlin, in his official
capacity as Archivist of the United States; and defendant-
intervenors/cross-claimants John H. Taylor and William E. Griffin,
co-executors of the estate of Richard M. Nixon (``the Nixon
estate''), in the above-entitled action by and through the parties'
undersigned attorneys.
It is hereby agreed, by and among the parties, appearing through
their undersigned attorneys, that this action is partially settled
on the following terms:
Terms of Agreement
1(a). As soon as practicable, the National Archives and Records
Administration (``the Archives'') will publicly release the segments
of tape recordings made during the Presidency of Richard M. Nixon
(``tape recordings'' or ``tapes'') identified by the Archives as
relating to ``abuses of governmental power,'' as defined by 36
C.F.R. Part 1275, along with the corresponding portions of the tape
log and any other finding aid. The date of that release, which is
expected to be on or about November 15, 1996, shall be determined in
the following manner.
(b). No later than April 15, 1996, the Archives shall deliver to
an agent of the Nixon estate a copy of the approximately 201 hours
of abuses of governmental power tape segments that it proposes to
release, together with the corresponding portions of the tape log
and any other finding aid, for review by the Nixon estate to
determine whether it intends to object to the release. The Archives
agrees to provide a period of orientation to the designated Nixon
estate agent with respect to the review of the abuses of
governmental power tape segments and to be available to respond to
questions thereafter.
(c). In place of the right to make all other objections with
respect to the tape recordings that the Archives has designated as
abuses of governmental power materials, the Nixon estate agrees that
it may object to their release only on the ground that such
designation by the Archives is clearly inconsistent with the term
``abuses of governmental power'' as used in section 104(a)(1) of the
Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act of 1974
(``the Act''), 44 U.S.C. Sec. 2111 note, and defined in 36 C.F.R.
1275.16(c), as qualified by 36 C.F.R. 1275.50(b). Any such objection
shall be in writing and may not be based on isolated instances of
alleged failure by the Archives to apply the appropriate review
standard, but only on a pattern of misapplication of the
requirements of the Act and its implementing regulations. Further,
any such objection must be accompanied by specific examples of
alleged review errors and contain sufficient information to enable
the review panel described in subparagraph 1(e) below to locate
those examples readily. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude the
Nixon estate and the Archives from having informal discussions
regarding the appropriate treatment of any of the abuses of
governmental power tape segments.
(d). The Nixon estate shall have until October 1, 1996, to
submit any objection in accordance with subparagraph 1(c) above. If
no such objection is filed, the Archives shall proceed to issue a
notice of proposed release pursuant to 36 C.F.R. 1275.42 as soon as
possible, but no later than October 15, 1996.
(e). If an objection is made, the matter shall be immediately
referred to a panel of the following three Presidential Library
archivists: David Alsobrook, Frances Seeber, and Claudia Anderson.
If any of these three persons is unable to serve, the Archivist
shall appoint a substitute who is acceptable to the other parties.
(f). The panel shall have such access to the tapes as it deems
necessary to make its decision. The decision of the panel shall be
either that the Nixon estate's objection is sustained or that it is
rejected. The decision shall include a brief statement of the
panel's reasons, but it need not include an item-by-item
determination. In deciding whether the designation by the Archives
of the material proposed to be released is clearly inconsistent with
the definition of ``abuses of governmental power,'' the panel shall
consider whether the release would seriously injure legitimate
interests of identifiable
[[Page 17847]]
individuals, whether the errors suggest a pattern of
misinterpretation, and any other factor that bears on the issue of
whether the Archives' designation of material as relating to abuses
of governmental power was reasonable, considered as a whole. The
decision of the panel shall be made within sixty (60) days of the
date of the objection. However, if the panel determines that
exceptional circumstances interfere with its ability to meet this
deadline, the panel shall have up to an additional sixty (60) days
to make its decision. The Archives shall notify the other parties of
the need for an extension and briefly describe the reasons therefor.
The panel's decision shall be final and binding on all parties, and
no party may exercise any right to appeal to any person, board, or
court that might otherwise be available. Nothing contained in this
Agreement shall preclude the panel from advising the Archives of any
particular processing errors that it believes may have been made,
but the Archivist shall make the final determination as to whether
to accept such advice.
(g). If the objection of the Nixon estate is sustained, the
Archives shall re-review the tapes sufficiently to address the
concerns raised by whatever aspect of the objection is sustained. At
the conclusion of such re-review, the same process of review, first
by the Nixon estate and then by the panel in the event of further
objection, shall be repeated for those tape segments concerning the
subject matter of the sustained objection prior to any release of
tape recordings designated as relating to abuses of governmental
power.
(h). The Nixon estate agrees to inform the Archives and
plaintiffs whether it intends to file objections as soon as it has
made its decision. If there is an objection by the Nixon estate and
it is overruled, the Federal Register notice shall be published
within ten (10) days of the date of the panel's decision.
(i). If, following the Federal Register notice, no objection by
other individuals to a release is received within the time provided
by law, the Archives shall release the tape recordings within ten
(10) days after such time has expired. If objections are received,
they shall be promptly considered by the Archives and shall be
decided as soon thereafter as practical. Any materials as to which
an objection to release has been timely filed shall not be released
until such objection has been resolved pursuant to 36 C.F.R.
1275.44. All materials not objected to shall be released no later
than thirty (30) days after the time for objections has expired,
provided that the Archives may withhold any additional conversation
to which no objection has been made, pending final resolution of an
objection to another conversation, if (i) such additional
conversation is in close proximity on the tapes to the objected-to
conversation and it would be burdensome for the Archives to separate
out the releasable and objected-to portions, or (ii) the subjects of
the releasable and the objected-to conversations are closely related
to one another and the Archives determines that it might be
misleading or might unfairly prejudice a living individual to
release only one conversation. Any release under this Agreement
shall include the corresponding portions of the tape log and any
other finding aid.
(j). The Archives shall send to plaintiff Kutler, to arrive no
later than the day that the release of the tapes occurs, a copy of
the portions of the tape log and any other finding aid that
correspond to the tapes being released. The Archives shall also make
suitable arrangements for plaintiff Kutler to listen to such tapes
on the date of their release, and/or on such other subsequent
business days as plaintiff Kutler shall designate.
2(a). Although the Agreement provides that the Archives will
identify and return to the Nixon estate a copy of any private or
personal materials identified on the tapes, the parties have been
unable to reach agreement regarding the Archivist's retention and
maintenance of the original tape recordings in their entirety,
including those segments deemed to be private or personal, along
with a master preservation copy. The government's position is that
it is complying with the Act by retaining the original tapes and a
master preservation copy, including those portions containing
private or personal conversations. The Nixon estate's position, with
which plaintiffs agree, is that the family has statutory,
constitutional, and other rights that prevent the Archives from
retaining private or personal materials, on both the original tapes
and all copies.
(b). The parties have agreed to litigate the issue described in
subparagraph 2(a) above, including the validity of 36 C.F.R.
1275.48(a) and 1275.64(e) as proposed for amendment. The parties
further agree that the Court shall retain jurisdiction of that
issue, as provided in paragraph 14 below, and that the right to
litigate this issue includes the right to seek review in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the
United States Supreme Court. If there is litigation between the
Nixon estate and the Archivist over the issue described in
subparagraph 2(a) above, the plaintiffs shall support the Nixon
estate in any such litigation by filing a brief supporting the
estate's position in District Court. The parties agree to make all
reasonable efforts to expedite resolution of this issue.
(c). This Agreement and all discussions, negotiations and
exchanges of information leading to it shall be entirely without
prejudice to any positions the parties may take in the event of such
litigation. Nothing in this Agreement, in any discussions leading to
it, or in any information or materials exchanged by the parties as
part of the mediation may be relied on or disclosed by any party to
support or rebut the position of any party with respect to the
treatment of private or personal materials on the original tapes.
Nothing in this subparagraph prevents any party from expressing its
understanding as to the meaning and effect of the legal position of
another party.
3. The Archives will provide to the Nixon estate any additional
private or personal materials at approximately the time that the
Archives proposes each segment identified in paragraphs 4 and 5
below for public release. Any additional copies of that material
(other than on a master preservation copy, the status of which will
be determined in accordance with the resolution of the issue as
described in subparagraph 2(a) above), will be destroyed by
appropriate method, with appropriate means of verification.
4(a). The second group of tapes to be processed for release is
the approximately 278 hours recorded in the Cabinet Room. The
projected date for publishing a notice of proposed opening of tapes
in that group is August 1, 1997. The Archives will make the Cabinet
Room tapes proposed for release available to the Nixon estate in no
fewer than four (4) segments. The process by which those tapes will
be reviewed by the Nixon estate, and the objections handled by the
Archives, is set forth in the following subparagraphs of this
paragraph 4.
(b). The Nixon estate agrees to review each segment as it is
received and promptly to call to the attention of the Archives any
concerns that it may have. The Archives and the Nixon estate agree
to attempt to work out their differences informally in order to
minimize any objections to a proposed release. To facilitate
informal consultation between the Nixon estate and the Archives
concerning the tape review, the Archivist shall designate a panel
member identified in subparagraph 1(e) above who will serve as a
contact with the Nixon estate and assure access to information
relating to Presidential libraries practices and procedures that may
arise in the course of the tape review. The designated individual
will be responsible for assuring that the Nixon estate has access to
the appropriate person to answer its concerns. The Nixon estate may
communicate with the designated individual orally or in writing. If
the Archives agrees with the Nixon estate that any portion of a
segment that has been sent to the Nixon estate as a proposed release
should not be released, the Archives shall assure that there is
appropriate documentation to reflect that change.
(c). The Nixon estate will have a period of at least six (6)
months in which to review all of the Cabinet Room tapes, beginning
on the date the Archives makes the first installment of such tapes
available to the estate for review (but in no event will the six (6)
months begin earlier than November 15, 1996). During the review of
the Cabinet Room tapes, the Nixon estate will employ an agent or
agents who will spend an average of at least thirty two (32) hours a
week (total) in actual review of the tapes. The Nixon estate may
request from the Archives an extension of the six-month review
period, which the Archives shall grant if good cause is shown.
(d). If, during its review, the Nixon estate becomes aware that
there are materials proposed for release that it believes should not
be heard even by individuals on the registry list, it will promptly
advise the Archives of any such materials so that they can be
reviewed and/or segregated by the Archives before any other
individual is permitted to listen to them. The Nixon estate will
cooperate with the Archives so that the required Federal Register
notice is published as soon as possible, but in no event shall such
notice be provided later than ten (10) days after the time the Nixon
estate completes its review. Final objections from the Nixon estate
to the release of portions of the tapes shall be filed in accordance
with 36
[[Page 17848]]
C.F.R. Part 1275 no later than the date for filing objections by
other persons. Thereafter, subject to paragraph 7 below, the
provisions of subparagraphs 1(i) and 1(j) above will apply.
5(a). The remaining tapes, consisting of approximately 2338
hours, shall be processed for release in five (5) segments. Because
the precise number of hours of tapes for each month cannot readily
be determined, the parties have agreed to divide the releases into
the segments set forth below. The Archives will begin processing
(which includes, but is not limited to, tape review, preparing tapes
for declassification review, tape editing and production of finding
aids) each segment before processing of the preceding segment is
concluded. Processing of the tapes in each segment is projected to
take from about fifteen (15) to about twenty three (23) months. The
approximate number of hours of tapes to be reviewed in each segment
is set forth in parentheses in the following listing of the
segments. The projected number of months between the completion of
the Archives' processing of the immediately preceding segment and
the completion of the Archives' processing of each listed segment is
set forth in brackets.
1. February 1971-July 1971 (437 hours) [8 months]
2. August 1971-December 1971 (405 hours) [7 months]
3. January 1972-June 1972 (440 hours) [7 months]
4. July 1972-October 1972 (410 hours) [6 months]
5. November 1972-July 1973 (646 hours) [10 months]
(b). The time estimates in this Agreement are not enforceable as
such, but the parties agree to have the Court retain jurisdiction to
consider requests that it enter a binding order setting a schedule
for the Archives to complete the processing of the tapes. No party
may seek such an order unless that party first provides twenty (20)
days' written notice to the other parties of that party's intention
to seek such an order. Further, no party may seek such an order
except on the ground that the Archives has unreasonably failed to
meet the estimates contained herein by a substantial amount. The
type of proof that will demonstrate reasonableness on the part of
the Archives in this regard may include, but will not necessarily be
limited to, a showing that the Archives is reasonably allocating its
resources among its various programs and activities in the event
that it experiences a shortage of resources, including any
occasioned by court order.
(c). Portions of each segment processed by the Archives shall be
provided to the Nixon estate when the processing of each month of
tape recorded material is completed, unless there are a very few
hours for two (2) or more months, which may then be combined into a
single unit. During its review of the chronological tape segments,
the Nixon estate will employ an agent or agents who will spend an
average of at least thirty two (32) hours a week (total) in actual
review of the tapes, forty eight (48) weeks of the year. As its
review of the tapes proceeds, the Nixon estate shall provide a
written report of its progress to the Archives and the plaintiffs on
a bimonthly basis. The report shall include the number of hours
worked in each week, the number of hours of tapes reviewed in each
week, and the Nixon estate's projected completion date for review of
the segment currently under review. The provisions of subparagraphs
4(b) and 4(d) above shall apply to the review, objections, and
releases with respect to the chronological tape segments, subject to
paragraph 7 below.
(d). If one of the other parties to this Agreement determines
that the Nixon estate's review is not being conducted diligently or
in good faith, or that the estate's estimated completion date(s) of
one or more segments is unreasonable, that party may petition the
Archivist to establish an earlier date(s) for the completion of the
review of that segment and/or of future segments. Any such date(s)
established by the Archivist shall provide the Nixon estate with a
reasonable opportunity to protect and assert its interests without
unduly delaying the release of the tapes, and shall be based upon
consideration of the progress of the Archives' review and its
scheduled completion date(s); the progress to date of the estate's
review; and the time reasonably necessary to complete the estate's
review and to formulate and present any objections. The Archives may
also propose earlier dates for the completion of the review by the
Nixon estate on the basis provided for in this subparagraph. If a
proposal for an earlier date is made, the Nixon estate will have a
reasonable opportunity to respond.
6. Once the Archives has completed processing the approximately
2338 hours of tapes discussed in paragraph 5 above, and has made
corresponding releases, the Archives shall identify any additional
copies of partial tape segments in its possession. If the Archives
determines that some or all of such additional partial tape segments
are duplicative of any tape recordings that it has already
processed, the Archives may dispose of the duplicative tape
segments, following notification to the parties, subject to
paragraph 3 above. To the extent that such partial tape segments are
not duplicative of the tape recordings already processed, the
Archives shall promptly process such non-duplicative portions and
shall treat any portions determined to be private or personal
consistently with the resolution of the issue to be litigated as
described in paragraph 2 above.
7(a). After completion of the procedures described in paragraph
4 above, the Cabinet Room tapes that are found to be releasable
under paragraph 4 above may be released if either there has been a
final decision by the district court on the issue to be litigated as
described in subparagraph 2(a) above, or the release is scheduled
after April 1, 1998, whichever of these two events happens sooner.
(b). After completion of the procedures described in paragraph 5
above, the tapes described in paragraph 5(a) above that are found to
be releasable may be released if either there has been a final
judgment by the district court, which is not subject to further
review by appeal or certiorari, with regard to the issue to be
litigated as described in subparagraph 2(a) above, or there has been
a final decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit on this issue, or the release is
scheduled to take place after November 1, 1999, whichever of these
three events happens sooner.
(c). As used in subparagraphs 7(a) and (b) above, the term
``final decision'' means a decision not subject to reconsideration
under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or Rules 35
or 40 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, respectively.
8. The Nixon estate may, at any time, elect to use the
procedures in paragraph 1 above with respect to any tape segment in
place of the provisions of paragraphs 4(b) and (d) and 5(c) above,
with the following substitution: The standard under which objections
shall be made, and under which the panel shall decide their merits,
is whether the release taken as a whole is plainly inconsistent with
the requirements of the Act and its implementing regulations.
Provided, however, that once the Nixon estate elects to use the
procedures in paragraph 1 above in place of the provisions in
paragraphs 4(b) and (d) and 5(c) above, it cannot subsequently
revert back to the formal objection process set forth in 36 C.F.R.
Part 1275 for that tape segment.
9. Within thirty (30) days of the Court's entry of an order as
described in paragraph 14 below, the Archivist shall designate a
particular person who shall be responsible for responding to
reasonable inquiries from the plaintiffs on the status of the
releases and objections. Such designation may be changed at any time
at the Archivist's discretion by a notice to plaintiffs through
their counsel.
10. If the Archives appoints a Senior Archival Panel as defined
in 36 C.F.R. 1275.46(d) and (e), no party to the Agreement may
object to the appointment of such a panel on the ground that the
suggestion to appoint such a panel was originated by an individual
other than the processing archivists assigned to the Archives' Nixon
Presidential Materials Staff.
11. The Archives will allow members of the public to obtain
copies of publicly accessible portions of the tapes after the
releases described in paragraph 5 above, are completed; provided,
however, that if the releases described in paragraph 5 above are not
completed by December 31, 1999, the Archives will allow members of
the public to obtain copies only of the abuses of governmental power
tapes, together with any other tapes publicly released as of the
date of the filing of this Agreement with the Court, beginning
January 1, 2000. Further provided, that if the releases described in
paragraph 5 above are not completed by December 31, 2002, the
Archives will, beginning January 1, 2003, allow members of the
public to obtain copies of all tapes that have been made available
to the public by that date and tapes that subsequently become
available, as they are released.
12(a). Promptly after the Court enters the Order provided for in
paragraph 14 below, plaintiff Kutler will withdraw his request under
the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, for any and all tape
logs and other finding aids, which is pending in Kutler v. Carlin,
et al., Civ. A. No. 92-0661-NHJ (D.D.C.). In all other respects,
plaintiff Kutler's request in that action shall be unaffected by
this Agreement.
[[Page 17849]]
(b). Nothing in this Agreement shall affect the processing by
the Archives of any dictabelts, which are a collection of recordings
of former President Nixon and other White House staff members
dictating memoranda, correspondence and speech drafts, that are
included in the materials that are subject to the Act.
13. Pursuant to Rule 315 of this Court, the plaintiffs and the
defendant shall attempt to resolve the plaintiffs' claim for
attorneys' fees and expenses and shall advise the Court no later
than forty-five (45) days after this Court has entered the Order
provided for in paragraph 14 below on whether they have been able to
resolve the issue of attorneys' fees and expenses. If no resolution
has been reached, they will, at that time, recommend a schedule to
the Court to resolve such claim.
14. The parties agree to the dissolution of the preliminary
injunction entered on August 9, 1993, and dismissal with prejudice
of this action, including all claims and cross-claims, except for
the issue to be litigated as described in subparagraph 2(a) above,
and any fees and expenses claimed pursuant to paragraph 13 above, by
filing the attached Joint Motion to Vacate Preliminary Injunction
and to Dismiss Claims, and the attached Consent Order. The parties
agree that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to: (a) Consider the
entry of an order in accordance with the terms of paragraph 5 above;
(b) resolve the issue to be litigated as described in subparagraph
2(a) above; (c) determine any fees and expenses claimed pursuant to
paragraph 13 above; and (d) for the purpose of enforcing the terms
of this Agreement. The parties further agree that such jurisdiction,
except with respect to the issue described in paragraph 2 above,
will be retained only until the later of the implementation of
paragraph 11 above or the completion of the releases called for in
paragraph 5 above. Plaintiffs and the Nixon estate further agree
that they will not challenge any regulations issued by the Archives
which implement and are consistent with this Agreement.
15. The terms of this Agreement may not be altered except with
the written consent of the parties. Nothing in this Agreement
constitutes an admission of liability or wrongdoing on the part of
any party.
Executed this 12th day of April, 1996.
For Plaintiffs Stanley I. Kutler and Public Citizen:
Alan B. Morrison,
(D.C. Bar No. 073114), Public Citizen Litigation Group, 1600 20th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20009, (202) 588-1000.
For Defendant John W. Carlin:
Anne L. Weismann,
(D.C. Bar No. 298190)
Judry L. Subar,
(D.C. Bar No. 347518)
Alina S. Kofsky,
(D.C. Bar No. 419093), Department of Justice, Federal Programs Branch,
Civil Division, 901 E Street NW., Room 1010, Washington, DC 20530,
(202) 514-4523.
For Defendant-Intervenors John H. Taylor and William E. Griffin:
Herbert J. Miller,
(D.C. Bar No. 026120)
R. Stan Mortenson,
(D.C. Bar No. 114678)
Scott L. Nelson,
(D.C. Bar No. 413548)
Ellen Fels Berkman,
(D.C. Bar No. 433310)
Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin,
2555 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037, (202) 293-6400.
Dated: April 18, 1996.
John W. Carlin,
Archivist of the United States.
[FR Doc. 96-9974 Filed 4-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9971 Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Pacific Ocean Perch in the Western Aleutian District
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17849-17850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9971]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 675
[Docket No. 960129019-6019-01; I.D. 041796A]
Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Pacific
Ocean Perch in the Western Aleutian District
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Closure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is closing the directed fishery for Pacific ocean perch
in the Western Aleutian District of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding
the total allowable catch of Pacific ocean perch in this area.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), April 18, 1996,
until 12 midnight, A.l.t., December 31, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Furuness, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive
economic zone is managed by NMFS according to the Fishery Management
Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
under authority of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management
Act. Fishing by U.S. vessels is governed by regulations implementing
the FMP at 50 CFR parts 620 and 675.
In accordance with Sec. 675.20(a)(7)(ii), the initial total
allowable catch of Pacific ocean perch for the Western Aleutian
District was established by the Final 1996 Harvest Specifications of
Groundfish (61 FR 4311, February 5, 1996) for the BSAI as 5,143 metric
tons (mt). As of March 30, 1996, 1,465 mt remains. The directed fishery
for Pacific ocean perch in the Western Aleutian District was closed
under Sec. 675.20(a)(8) on March 20, 1996 (58 FR 12041, March 25, 1996)
and reopened on April 15, 1996 (Action filed by the Office of the
Federal Register on April 15, 1996, and scheduled for publication in
the Federal Register on April 19, 1996.).
[[Page 17850]]
The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Director), has
determined, in accordance with Sec. 675.20(a)(8), that the Pacific
ocean perch initial total allowable catch in the Western Aleutian
District subarea soon will be reached. Therefore, the Regional Director
has established a directed fishing allowance of 5,093 mt after
determining that 50 mt will be taken as incidental catch in directed
fishing for other species in the Western Aleutian District.
Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean
perch in the Western Aleutian District.
Maximum retainable bycatch amounts for applicable gear types may be
found in the regulations at Sec. 675.20(h).
Classification
This action is taken under Sec. 675.20 and is exempt from review
under E.O. 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: April 17, 1996.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-9971 Filed 4-18-96; 3:09 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9938 Hopi Tribe Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17833-17840]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9938]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 756
[HO-OO3-FOR]
Hopi Tribe Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)
is approving, with certain exceptions and additional requirements, a
proposed amendment to the Hopi Tribe Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation
(AMLR) plan (hereinafter, the ``Hopi Tribe plan'') under the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The Hopi Tribe
proposed revisions of and additions to plan provisions pertaining to
the purpose of the plan; eligible lands and water subsequent to
certification; coordination with other programs; land acquisition,
management, and disposal; reclamation on private land and rights of
entry; public participation; organization of the Hopi Tribe; personnel
staffing policies; purchasing policies, procurement procedures, and
accounting systems; economic conditions on the Hopi Reservation; a
description of flora and fauna at abandoned mine sites; the Hopi
Tribe's authority to administer its plan, as amended, in the absence of
a specific statute; changing the name of the designated agency; and
affirmation that the manual for purchasing policies and procedures is
in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Common
Rule. Additionally, the Hopi Tribe is proposing numerous editorial and
recodification changes. The amendment revised the Hopi Tribe plan to
meet the requirements of and incorporate the additional flexibility
afforded by the revised Federal regulations and SMCRA, as amended, and
improve operational efficiency.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 23, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Guy Padgett, Telephone: (505) 248-5070.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Hopi Tribe Plan
On June 28, 1988, the Secretary of the Interior approved the Hopi
Tribe plan. General background information on the Hopi Tribe plan,
including the Secretary's findings and the disposition of comments, can
be found in the June 28, 1988, Federal Register (53 FR 24262).
Subsequent actions concerning the Hopi Tribe plan and plan amendments
can be found at 30 CFR 756.16, 756.17, and 756.18.
II. Proposed Amendment
By letter dated November 2, 1995, the Hopi Tribe submitted a
proposed amendment to its plan (administrative record No. HO-148)
pursuant to SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). The Hopi Tribe submitted
the proposed amendment in response to a September 26, 1994, letter
(administrative record No. HO-145.1) that OSM sent to the Hopi Tribe in
accordance with 30 CFR 884.15(b), and at its own initiative.
The provisions of the Hopi Tribe plan that the Hopi Tribe proposed
to revise or add were: the table of contents, including a list of
appendices; a preface to the amended reclamation plan; a list of
addenda and errata, including a list of figures; the Chairman's letter
of designation and Hopi Tribe resolution; the General Counsel's opinion
on the authority of the Hopi Tribe to conduct an AMLR program; Part I,
purpose of the Hopi Tribe plan; Part II, eligible lands and water
subsequent to certification; Part III, coordination of the Hopi AMLR
Program with other programs; Part IV, land acquisition, management, and
disposal; Part V, reclamation on private land; Part VI, rights of
entry; Part VII, Hopi Department of Natural Resources (DNR) policy on
public participation; Part VIII, organization of the Hopi Tribe; Part
IX, personnel staffing policies; Part X, purchasing policies and
procurement procedures; Part XI, accounting systems and management
accounting; Part XII, economic conditions on the Hopi Reservation; and
Part XIII, a description of flora and fauna at abandoned mine sites.
The Hopi Tribe also proposed numerous minor editorial and grammatical
revisions and recodification changes. Finally, the Hopi Tribe proposed
changes to the appendices included in its plan as follows: (a) provided
as ``Appendix 1,'' the ``Constitution and By-Laws of the Hopi Tribe,''
which was approved December 19, 1936, and amended on August 1, 1969,
February 14, 1980, and December 7, 1993, (b) provided cover pages for
Appendices 2 through 12, and (c) changed the title of Appendix 7 from
``Hopi Tribe Resolution H-93-80'' to ``Hopi Tribe Resolution H-93-80
and Subsequent Correspondence to the Bureau of Census.''
In addition, the Hopi Tribe proposed the deletion of the following
sections in their entirety: (a) Section 884.13(e)(1), which is replaced
by specific criteria for eligible lands and waters subsequent to
certification at Part II of the Hopi Tribe plan; (b) Sections
884.13(e)(2) and 884.13(e)(3), which are replaced by a description of
current problems and needs and current proposals at Part II, section H
of the Hopi Tribe plan; and (c) Section 884.13(f)(2), Description of
Aesthetic, Cultural and Recreational Conditions of the Hopi
Reservation.
The Hopi Tribe also proposed adding the following items to its
plan: (1) A memorandum dated May 18, 1995, from the Hopi Tribe's
Assistant General Counsel affirming the authority of the Tribe's AMLR
Program to administer the Hopi Tribe plan as amended in the absence of
any AMLR statute; (2) Hopi Tribal Resolution H-134-89 that provides
documentation of the Tribe's action changing the name of the Office of
Natural Resources to the Department of Natural Resources; and (3) a
memorandum dated August 31, 1995, from the Tribe's Office of Financial
Management that affirms that the Hopi Tribe ``Purchasing Policies and
Procedures Manual'' is in accordance with OMB's Common Rule.
OSM announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the December 7,
1995, Federal Register (60 FR 62786), provided an opportunity for a
public hearing or meeting on its substantive adequacy, and invited
public comment on its adequacy (administrative record No. HO-150).
Because no one requested a public hearing or meeting, none was held.
The public comment period ended on January 8, 1996.
III. Director's Findings
As discussed below, the Director, in accordance with SMCRA and 30
CFR 884.14 and 884.15, finds, with certain
[[Page 17834]]
exceptions and additional requirements, that the proposed plan
amendment submitted by the Hopi Tribe on November 2, 1995, meets the
requirements of the corresponding Federal regulations and is consistent
with SMCRA. Thus, the Director approves the proposed amendment.
1. Nonsubstantive Revisions to the Hopi Tribe Plan Provisions
The Hopi Tribe proposed revisions to the following previously-
approved plan provisions that are nonsubstantive in nature and consist
of minor editorial, punctuation, grammatical, and recodification
changes (corresponding Federal regulation or SMCRA provisions are
listed in parentheses):
Table of Contents (there are no counterpart Federal regulations or
SMCRA provisions), title of Part II, ``Eligible Lands and Waters
Subsequent to Certification;''
Table of Contents, (there are no counterpart Federal regulations or
SMCRA provisions), List of Appendices;
List of Addenda and Errata, (there are no counterpart Federal
regulations or SMCRA provisions), title for this part;
List of Figures, (there are no counterpart Federal regulations or
SMCRA provisions), title of Figure 4 and deletion of Figure 5;
Chairman's Letter of Designation and Hopi Tribe Resolution, (30 CFR
884.13(a)), designation of agency authorized to administer approved
plan;
Opinion of Legal Counsel, (30 CFR 884.13(b)), authority of
designated agency to conduct the AMLR program in accordance with the
requirements of Title IV of SMCRA;
Part III, (30 CFR 884.13(c)), coordination of Tribal AML programs
with other programs;
Sections IV, A(2) (c), (d), (e), B(2), and C (30 CFR Part 879),
land acquisition, management, and disposal;
Part V and Figures 1 and 2, (30 CFR Part 882), reclamation on
private land;
Sections VI, A, B, and C, (30 CFR Part 877), rights of entry;
Part VII, (30 CFR 884.13(c)(7)), Hopi DNR policy on public
participation;
Part VIII and Figure 4, (30 CFR 884.13(d)(1)), organization of the
Hopi Tribe;
Part IX, (30 CFR 884.13(d)(2)), personnel staffing policies;
Part X, (30 CFR 884.13(d)(3)), purchasing and procurement;
Part XI, (30 CFR 884.13(d)(4)), management accounting;
Deletion of section 884.13(e)(1) [replaced by Part II] and deletion
of sections 884.13(e) (2) and (3) [replaced by section II, H], (30 CFR
884.13 (c) (1) and (2)), purpose of Hopi Tribe reclamation plan and
criteria for ranking and identifying projects;
Part XIII, (30 CFR 884.13(f)(2), flora and fauna;
Appendices 1 through 12, (there are no counterpart Federal
regulations or SMCRA provisions), addition of cover pages; and
Appendix 7, (there is no counterpart Federal regulation or SMCRA
provision), change of title of appendix.
Because the proposed revisions to these previously-approved Hopi
Tribe plan provisions are nonsubstantive in nature, the Director finds
that they meet the requirements of the Federal regulations and are
consistent with the corresponding provisions of SMCRA. Therefore, the
Director approves the proposed revisions to these plan provisions.
In addition, the Director is accepting the following supporting
documents for inclusion to the Hopi Tribe AMLR plan:
Memorandum from Assistant General Counsel/Legislative Counsel to
DNR dated May 18, 1995, concerning elimination of Title IV from the
draft Hopi Code Mining Ordinance;
Hopi Tribal Council Resolution H-134-89, adopted August 29, 1989;
and
Memorandum from the Hopi Tribe Office of Financial Management to
DNR dated September 7, 1995, concerning purchasing procedures.
2. Substantive Revisions to the Hopi Tribe Plan Provisions That Are
Substantially Identical to the Corresponding Provisions of the Federal
Regulations and SMCRA
The Hopi Tribe proposed revisions to the following plan provisions
that are substantive in nature and contain language that is
substantively identical to the requirements of the corresponding
Federal regulations and SMCRA provisions (listed in parentheses):
Preface to Amended Reclamation Plan, (section 411 of SMCRA and 30
CFR Part 875), program goals and objectives and eligible projects;
Section I, B, (30 CFR 884.13(a)), designation of administrative
authority;
Section I, C, (section 403(a) of SMCRA), introductory paragraph for
reclamation priorities;
Section I, C (4) and (5), (section 403(a) (4) and (5) of SMCRA),
deletion of existing C (4) and recodification of C(5) and (6) and C(4)
and (5);
Section I, C, (deleted section 402(g)(2) of SMCRA), deletion of
provisions concerning allocation of funds;
Sections II, A(1) (a) through (f), (30 CFR 874.12 (a) through (h)),
eligible coal lands and water;
Section II, A(1)(g), (30 CFR 874.16), contractor responsibility;
Sections II, B(1) (a) and (b), (30 CFR 875.14(a) (1) and (2)),
eligible lands and water subsequent to certification;
Sections II, B(1)(c), (d)(i) and (iii), (e), and (g), (30 CFR
875.15(a), (b)(1) and (3), (c), and (e)), reclamation priorities for
noncoal program;
Sections II, C through F, (30 CFR 875.16, 875.17, 875.19, and
875.20), exclusion of certain noncoal reclamation sites, noncoal land
acquisition authority, limited liability, and contractor
responsibility;
Section II, H and [deletion of] ranking and selection of noncoal
reclamation projects and Table I, Comprehensive/Problem Evaluation
Matrix, (30 CFR 884.13 (c) and (e)), description of needs, proposed
construction and activities;
Section IV, A(2)(b), (30 CFR 879.11), lands eligible for
acquisition;
Part XII, (30 CFR 884.13(f)(1)), economic conditions of the Hopi
Reservation; and
Appendix 1, (there is no counterpart Federal regulation or SMCRA
provision), Constitution and By-Laws of the Hopi Tribe, as amended.
Because these proposed revisions to the Hopi Tribe plan provisions
are substantively identical to the corresponding provisions of the
Federal regulations and SMCRA or concern proposed deletions of
provisions deleted from Title IV of SMCRA, the Director finds that they
meet the requirements of the Federal regulations and are consistent
with SMCRA. The Director approves these proposed revisions to the Hopi
Tribe plan provisions.
3. Preface to Amended Reclamation Plan
The Hopi Tribe proposed the addition of a preface to the Hopi Tribe
plan, which provides, in part, a discussion in the introductory
paragraph of the reasons for the amended reclamation plan. The preface
discusses the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508),
but there is no mention of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. (Pub. L. 102-
486, EPACT), which was enacted October 24, 1992. EPACT amended Title IV
of SMCRA in several ways. The Hopi Tribe incorporated in the proposed
revisions to the Hopi Tribe plan provisions addressing some of the
amended Federal requirements. The Director finds that the preface is
consistent with title IV of SMCRA and is in compliance with the
implementing Federal regulations, but suggests that the introductory
paragraph be revised to also reference the Energy Policy Act of 1992
and provide that the plan amendment has been prepared to be in
conformance with it.
[[Page 17835]]
The introductory paragraph also provides that the amendment has
been prepared to meet the requirements of 30 CFR Parts 870 (Abandoned
Mine Reclamation Fund-Fee Collection and Coal Production Reporting),
872 (Abandoned Mine Reclamation Funds), 873 (Future Reclamation Set-
Aside Program), 874 (General Reclamation Requirements), 875 (Noncoal
Reclamation), 876 (Acid Mine Drainage Treatment and Abatement Program),
and 886 (State and Tribal Reclamation Grants). However, the amendment
contains no provisions concerning a future reclamation set-aside
program or an acid mine drainage treatment and abatement program. The
Director recommends that the references to the provisions concerning a
future reclamation set-aside program and an acid mine drainage
treatment and abatement program should be deleted.
4. Section I, A, Purpose of the Hopi Tribe AMLR Plan
a. Section I, A.--The Hopi Tribe proposed to revise Part I to
provide a general description of funding priorities similar to those at
sections 403 (a) and (b)(1) of SMCRA, which pertain only to coal, and
to include reclamation activities pertaining to the adverse effects and
impacts of mineral mining and processing practices [noncoal] similar to
those provided at sections 411 (c) and (e) of SMCRA.
However, the Hopi Tribe did not retain the distinctions between
coal and noncoal by setting out separate provisions for each. Title IV
of SMCRA and the Federal regulations distinctly and separately provide
requirements concerning coal reclamation at section 403 and 30 CFR Part
874 and noncoal reclamation at section 411 and 30 CFR Part 875. The
Director finds that the Hopi Tribe's proposed replacement of the word
``coal'' with the phrase ``mining and processing practices'' at section
I, A inappropriately combines coal and noncoal reclamation activities,
and is, therefore, inconsistent with SMCRA and not in compliance with
the Federal regulations. The Director is requiring, in order to
properly reflect the objectives and priorities for expenditures of
moneys from the abandoned mine land fund, the Hopi Tribe to revise Part
I by creating separate provisions for coal and noncoal reclamation
activities in order to be consistent with sections 403 and 411 of SMCRA
and in compliance with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR Parts 874 and
875.
b. Section I, A(1).--Section I, A(1) provides, in part, that one
purpose of the Hopi AMLR plan is to ``protect the health, safety, and
general welfare of members of the Hopi Tribe * * *.'' The language
contained in this section is similar to sections 403(a) (1) and (2) and
411(c) (1) and (2) of SMCRA, except that sections 403 and 411
distinguish between the ``protection of public health, safety, general
welfare, and property from extreme danger of adverse effects'' of
mining (emphasis added) and the ``protection of public health, safety,
and general welfare from adverse effects'' of mining. Section I, A of
the Hopi Tribe plan is a general description of the purpose the plan
itself. As such, the Director finds that, even though section I, A(1)
does not distinguish between the ``extreme danger of adverse effects''
and the ``adverse effects'' of mining and processing practices, the
plan at sections I, C (1) and (2) and proposed II, B(1)(d) (i) and (ii)
provide for coal and noncoal reclamation priorities, which specifically
address the ``extreme danger of the adverse effects'' and the ``adverse
effects'' consistent with sections 403(a) and 411(c) of SMCRA.
Therefore, the Director approves the proposed language of section I,
A(1).
c. Section I, A(2).--The proposed revisions at section I, A(2)
provide that another purpose of the Hopi AMLR plan is to ``restore land
and water resources degraded by the adverse effects of mining and
processing practices for both aesthetic and conservation reasons.''
This language is similar to sections 403(a)(3) and 411(c)(3) of SMCRA,
except that sections 403 and 411 also provide for the restoration of
the environment previously degraded by mining practices; and section
403(a)(3), which concerns coal reclamation only, includes restoration
measures for conservation and development of soil, water (excluding
channelization), woodland, fish and wildlife, recreation resources, and
agricultural productivity. The specific priorities for coal and noncoal
reclamation concerning restoration of land and water resources and the
environment previously degraded by mining practices are provided for in
the Hopi Tribe plan at section I, C(3) and proposed section II,
B(1)(d)(iii). These provisions are substantively identical to sections
403(a)(3) and 411(c)(3) of SMCRA. Therefore, the Director finds that
the general description concerning restoration of land and water
resources provided in the purpose of the Hopi Tribe plan at section I,
A(2) is consistent with sections 403 and 411 of SMCRA. The Director
approves the revisions to this plan provision.
d. Section I, A(3).--The Hopi Tribe proposed to revise section I, A
of the Hopi Tribe plan by adding new language at paragraph (3) ``to
provide for protecting, repairing, replacing, constructing, or
enhancing facilities related to water supply, including water
distribution facilities and treatment plants, to replace water supplies
adversely affected by mining and processing practices.'' The Director
finds that proposed section I, A(3), which is similar to section
403(b)(1) of SMCRA, is inconsistent with SMCRA for two reasons. First
of all, the Hopi Tribe is proposing to extend the provisions of section
I, A(3) to noncoal reclamation activities by proposing to change the
word ``coal'' to ``mining and processing practices.'' The provisions of
section 403 of SMCRA apply only to coal, and as proposed at I, A(3) in
the Hopi Tribe plan, the water replacement provision includes all
mining and processing practices, and is not limited to only coal mining
practices. Secondly, section 403(b)(1) of SMCRA also only applies in
those States or Indian tribes that have not certified to the completion
of coal reclamation. The Hopi Tribe provided certification of
completion of coal reclamation in a letter from the Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of the Hopi Tribe dated February 2, 1994 (59 FR
29719, June 9, 1994). The Director requires the Hopi Tribe to revise
its AMLR plan by deleting section I, A(3) and recodifying the
subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
e. Section I, A(4).--The Hopi Tribe proposed to add new language at
section I, A(4) ``to provide for the protection, repair, replacement,
construction, or enhancement of public facilities such as utilities,
roads, recreation, and conservation facilities adversely affected by
mining and processing practices.'' This provision is similar to section
403(a)(4) of SMCRA, except that I, A(4) applies to ``mining and
processing practices'' while section 403(a)(4) pertains only to public
facilities adversely affected by coal mining practices (emphasis
added). Also, subsequent to certification, reclamation projects
involving the protection, repair, replacement, construction, or
enhancement of utilities, such as those relating to water supply,
roads, and other facilities that have been adversely affected by mining
and processing practices, and the construction of public facilities in
communities impacted by coal or other mineral mining and processing
practices, are provided for at section 411(e) of SMCRA. Therefore, the
Director finds that section I, A(4) is inconsistent with sections
403(a)(4) and 411(e) of SMCRA. The Director is requiring the Hopi Tribe
to revise
[[Page 17836]]
section I, A(4) to reflect the objectives and priorities concerning
public facilities set forth at section 411(e) of SMCRA.
5. Sections II, A(1), (f) and (h), Coal Reclamation After Certification
a. Section II, A.--Section II, A does not contain provisions
concerning limited liability for coal reclamation activities similar to
the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 874.15. This plan amendment does
provide at proposed section II, E limited liability provisions, which
are viewed by OSM, consistent with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR
Parts 874 and 875, which provide separate and distinct provisions for
coal and noncoal reclamation, including limited liability provisions,
as only applying to noncoal reclamation activities. As provided in
OSM's September 26, 1994, 30 CFR Part 884 issue letter (administrative
record No. HO-145.1), the Hopi Tribe was given the option to adopt
limited liability provisions for coal reclamation activities similar to
the counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 874.15. Because the Hopi
Tribe was given the discretion to determine whether to include in its
plan limited liability provisions for coal reclamation activities, the
Director finds that section II, A is in compliance with 30 CFR Part 875
and approves section II, A without a specific limited liability
provision for coal. The Director cautions the Hopi Tribe, however, that
should any coal projects occur subsequent to the Hopi Tribe's
certification of completion of coal reclamation, the Hopi Tribe AMLR
program may be held liable under Federal law for any costs or damages
as a result of any action or omitted action while carrying out its
approved abandoned mine reclamation plan. The Hopi Tribe may wish to
revise section II, A to extend its limited liability coverage to coal
reclamation projects.
b. Section II, A(1).--Proposed section II, A(1) of the Hopi Tribe
AMLR plan provides that February 2, 1994, is the effective date of the
Hopi Tribe's certification that all known abandoned coal mine problems
had been addressed. This date is actually the date that the Hopi Tribe
submitted to OSM its certification of completion of coal reclamation
with a request for concurrence by the Secretary of the Interior. OSM
approved the Hopi Tribe's certification effective June 9, 1994 (see 59
FR 29721). The Director is not requiring the Hopi Tribe to revise
section II, (A)(1) to reflect the correct effective date because
between February 2, 1994, which is the date of the Hopi Tribe's
submittal, and June 9, 1994, which is the effective date of the
certification, no new coal problems were identified as evidenced by the
lack of public response to the proposed rule Federal Register notice
seeking public participation in the certification process (see 59 FR
29720). Therefore, the Director is taking this opportunity to clarify
that the effective date of the Hopi Tribe's certification of completion
of coal reclamation is June 9, 1994.
Also, proposed section II, A(1) requires the Hopi Tribe to abate
coal problems found after the effective date of certification of
completion of coal reclamation in the first grant cycle following
discovery of any coal problem subject to the availability of funds
distributed to the Hopi Tribe in that cycle. The Director finds that
this requirement is consistent with the requirements at 30 CFR
875.14(b) of the Federal regulations, except that Sec. 875.14(b) also
provides that ``[t]he coal project would be subject to the coal
provisions specified in sections 401 through 410 of SMCRA.'' This
language ensures that should a coal problem occur, a State or Indian
tribe that has certified to the completion of coal reclamation, would
carry out subsequent coal reclamation activities under the State of
Indian tribe authorities relating to coal and not pursuant to noncoal
authority contained in section 411 of SMCRA. Therefore, the Director
approves section II, A(1) to the extent that it requires the Hopi Tribe
to abate any new coal problems that arise after the effective date of
the certification of completion of coal reclamation and requires the
Hopi Tribe to modify section II, A(1) to require that any coal project
would be subject to the provisions of sections 401 through 410 of SMCRA
or otherwise amend its AMLR plan to provide that new coal projects
identified after the effective date of certification would be subject
to the coal provisions of SMCRA.
c. Section II, A(1)(h).--The Hopi Tribe proposed at section II,
A(1)(h) to require that Form OSM-76 be submitted to OSM upon coal
project completion to report accomplishments achieved through the
project. This provision is in compliance with the Federal regulations
at 30 CFR 886.23 to the extent that the Hopi Tribe is required to
submit Form OSM-76 to OSM upon project completion. However, 30 CFR
886.23 also requires the submission of other forms as specified by OSM,
including reporting forms for each grant and any other closeout
reports. The grant document awarding AML funds to a State or Indian
tribe includes a condition requiring the grantee to submit financial
status reports, performance reports, and other such reports according
to the timing, content, and format as required by OSM. Such documents
are signed, not only by the OSM Field Office Director, but also by an
officer of the grantee authorized to accept the award with all its
conditions. Because the grant reporting requirements are attached to
the grant document, the Hopi Tribe AMLR plan appropriately does not
need to provide for reports concerning the grant itself. Therefore, the
Director finds section II, A(1)(h) is in compliance with the Federal
regulations at 30 CFR 886.23 and is not requiring the Hopi Tribe to add
requirements at section II, A(1)(h) concerning reporting information on
other forms specified by OSM. The Director approves section II,
A(1)(h).
6. Sections II, B(1)(d)(ii), (f), and G, Noncoal Reclamation After
Certification
a. Section II, B(1)(d)(ii).--The Hopi Tribe proposed to add
language at section II, B(1)(d)(i) through (iii) to provide criteria
for determining the priority of noncoal reclamation projects and
construction of facilities. The proposed criteria are similar to the
criteria provided in the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 875.15(b)(1)
through (3), except that section II, B(1)(d)(ii) of the Hopi Tribe AMLR
plan includes, as priority 2, the protection of property from the
adverse effects of mineral mining and processing practices. 30 CFR
875.15(b)(2) provides, as priority 2, for the protection of public
health, safety, and general welfare from the adverse effect of mineral
mining and processing practices. The Director finds that section II,
B(1)(d)(ii) of the Hopi Tribe AMLR plan, by including the protection of
property from the adverse effects of noncoal mining as a second level
priority, is not in compliance with the Federal regulations, which
provide for the protection of property from the extreme danger of the
adverse effects of noncoal mining as a level one priority. Therefore,
the Director requires the Hopi Tribe to revise section II, B(1)(d)(ii)
by deleting the word ``property'' or otherwise modify its plan to
provide the same criteria as that at 30 CFR 875.15(b)(2) for priority 2
noncoal reclamation.
b. Section II, B(1)(f).--The Hopi Tribe proposed at section II,
B(1)(f) to provide that where the Chairman of the Hopi Tribe determines
there is a need for activities or construction of specific public
facilities related to the coal or mineral industry on Tribal lands
impacted by coal or mineral development, the Tribe may submit a grant
application to OSM requesting funds to carry out such activities or
[[Page 17837]]
construction. This provision is in compliance with the Federal
regulations at 30 CFR 875.15(d), which allow a State or Indian Tribe to
request funding for a public facility if the Governor of a State or
head of a governing body of an Indian tribe determines there is a need
for the construction of a public facility related to the coal or
minerals industry. 30 CFR 875.15(d) also requires that where a State or
Tribe determines there is a need for activities or construction, the
Director of OSM must concur in that need. As discussed in the preamble
of the final rule Federal Register notice (see 59 FR 28136, 28162-3,
May 31, 1994), OSM, concerned that the AML program not be sidetracked
from its primary mission to reclaim lands and waters damaged by coal
and noncoal mining processes, must determine whether a need exists for
projects involving the construction of facilities pursuant to section
411(f) SMCRA. This determination is an action carried out solely by
OSM, and the State or Tribe is not involved in the determination made
by OSM. Therefore, the Hopi Tribe plan does not need to provide for
this action. The Director approves section II, B(1)(f), and is taking
this opportunity to reiterate that, prior to granting AML funds for
public facility projects proposed under section 411(f) of SMCRA and the
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 875.15(d), OSM's Director will concur
with the Hopi Tribe Chairman's statement of need for such projects.
c. Section II, G.--The Hopi Tribe proposed at section II, G that
Form OSM-76 be submitted to OSM upon noncoal project completion to
report accomplishments achieved through the project. The Director finds
that this provision is in compliance with the Federal regulations at 30
CFR 886.23(b). The Director also notes that the documents awarding
grants require, as a condition of acceptance, certain information to be
reported by the grantee, which complies with the reporting requirements
of 30 CFR 886.23(a). Therefore, the Director approves proposed section
II, G (see finding No. 5(c)).
7. Sections IV, A(1), 2(a)(i), and B(1), Land Acquisition, Management,
and Disposal
a. Section IV, A(1).--The Hopi Tribe proposed to revise section IV,
A(1) to provide, in part, that land adversely affected by coal and
noncoal mining practices, including refuse piles and all coal refuse
piles thereon, may be acquired by the Hopi Tribe for the purposes of
the reclamation program when the acquisition of the lands meets the
requirements of section 407 of SMCRA (emphasis added). This provision
is in compliance with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 879.11(a) and
(c), concerning lands eligible for acquisition. However, the Federal
regulations at 30 CFR 875.17 extend the land acquisition authority to
noncoal. At section IV, A(1), the Hopi Tribe proposed changing the
phrase ``coal mining practices'' to the phrase ``coal and noncoal
mining practices'' in one instance, but did not change ``coal refuse''
to a term that ensures that refuse on lands adversely affected by
noncoal mining practices may also be acquired under this provision. The
Director approves section IV, A(1), but requires the Hopi Tribe to
revise it by deleting the word ``coal'' from the phrase ``coal refuse
thereon'' to ensure that this provision extends to refuse on land
adversely affected by past noncoal practices.
b. Section IV, A(2)(a)(i).--The Hopi Tribe proposed revisions at
section IV, A(2)(a)(i) concerning appraisals to provide for a
``valuation of the fair market value * * *'' and ``principle of best
and highest use * * *.'' The provisions of section IV, A(2)(a)(i) are
in compliance with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 879.12 (a) and
(d), except that the language proposed by the Hopi Tribe concerning
fair market value and use is not the same language as that used in the
recognized standards for acquisitions. 30 CFR 879.12(d) requires OSM or
an Indian tribe which acquires land to comply with the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970 (URA), 42 U.S.C. 4601, et seq., and 41 CFR Part 114-50. URA
applies to all Federal or federally-assisted activities that involve
the acquisition of real property. The regulations implementing URA are
at 49 CFR Part 24. 49 CFR 24.103 requires that a detailed appraisal
shall reflect nationally recognized standards, including the Uniform
Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition (see 54 FR 8912, 8934,
March 2, 1989). The ``Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal
Acquisitions'' handbook, which by reference is the standard required by
the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 879.12, provides for a
``determination of the fair market value'' and ``the principle of
highest and best use.''
Even though the language proposed by the Hopi Tribe at section IV,
A(2)(a)(i) does not use the standardized language for appraisals, the
Director interprets the terms ``valuation of fair market value'' and
``the principle of best and highest use'' as having the same meaning as
the recognized standards for a ``determination of fair market value''
and the ``principle of highest and best use.'' Therefore, the Director
finds section IV, A(2)(a)(i) to be in compliance with the Federal
regulations at 30 CFR 879.12 and approves the proposed revisions.
c. Section IV, B(1).--As proposed, section IV, B(1) provides that
``[l]and acquired under rules of section A of this part Hopi AML
Program and Tribal Council concurrence, for any lawful purpose that is
not inconsistent with the reclamation activities and post-reclamation
uses for which it was acquired.'' The proposed deletion of the phrase
``may be used, pending'' between the phrases ``section A of this part''
and ``Hopi AML Program and Tribal concurrence'' causes the sentence to
become unclear. The counterpart Federal regulations at 30 CFR 879.14
provide the missing language as follows: `` ``[l]and acquired under
this part may be used for any lawful purpose.'' The Director finds that
section IV, B(1) is in compliance with 30 CFR 879.14, and approves the
proposed revisions concerning the references to ``section A'' and
``this part.'' The Director, however, requires the Hopi Tribe to remove
the deletion of the phrase ``may be used, pending.''
8. Section VI, C, Rights of Entry for Emergency Reclamation
The Hopi Tribe proposed to delete existing section VI, C concerning
entry for emergency reclamation. The Federal regulation at 30 CFR
877.14(a) provides for entry by OSM, its agents, employees, or
contractors upon land where an emergency exists and on any other land
to have access to the land where the emergency exists to restore,
reclaim, abate, control, or prevent the adverse effects of coal [and
noncoal as provided by 30 CFR 875.17] mining practices and to do all
things necessary to protect the public health, safety, or general
welfare. The preamble of the final rule for 30 CFR Part 877 (see 47 FR
28574, 28583, June 30, 1982) states that final rule 30 CFR 877.14
concerning emergency reclamation activities applies exclusively to OSM,
its agents, employees, and contractors. In the case of emergency
reclamation on Hopi Indian lands, OSM is the authority because the Hopi
Tribe did not request authority to conduct emergency response
reclamation under the original plan approval (see 53 FR 24262, June 28,
1988) and has not subsequently sought emergency power through the
amendment process. Because the emergency program on Hopi Indian lands
rests exclusively with OSM, the Director finds the deletion of existing
section VI, C of the Hopi Tribe plan to
[[Page 17838]]
be in compliance with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 877.
Therefore, the Director approves the deletion.
9. Section 884.13(f)(2), Description of Aesthetic, Cultural and
Recreational Conditions of the Hopi Reservation
The Hopi Tribe proposed deletion of Sec. 884.13(f)(2), which
provided a description of aesthetic, cultural and recreational
conditions of the Hopi Reservation. The counterpart Federal regulation
at 30 CFR 884.13(f)(2) requires that the reclamation plan include a
general description of the conditions prevailing in different
geographic areas of the Indian lands where reclamation is planned,
including significant esthetic, historic or cultural, and recreational
values. The Hopi Tribe did not provide, in this amendment, a
justification for the proposed deletion. Because 30 CFR 884.13(f) is a
specific requirement for information that shall be included in a State
or Tribe reclamation plan, the Director finds that the proposed
deletion of Sec. 884.13(f)(2) of the Hopi Tribe plan is not in
compliance with the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 884.13(f)(2). The
Director, therefore, requires the Hopi Tribe to remove its proposed
deletion of Sec. 884.13(f)(2) or otherwise provide the information
required by 30 CFR 884.13(f)(2) in its reclamation plan.
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
Following are summaries of all substantive written comments on the
proposed amendment that were received by OSM, and OSM's responses to
them.
1. Public comments
OSM invited public comments on the proposed amendment, but none
were received.
2. Federal agency comments
Pursuant to 30 CFR 884.15(a) and 884.14(a)(2), OSM solicited
comments on the proposed amendment from various Federal agencies with
an actual or potential interest in the Hopi Tribe plan (administrative
record Nos. HO-149 and 152).
The State Historic Preservation Office for the State of Arizona
responded on January 9, 1996, that the amendment had been reviewed and
stated that the proposed changes did not pertain to cultural resource
preservation (administrative record No. HO-151).
V. Director's Decision
Based on the above findings, the Director approves, with certain
exceptions and additional requirements, the Hopi Tribe's proposed plan
amendment as submitted on November 2, 1995.
With the requirement that the Hopi Tribe further revise its plan
provisions, the Director does not approve, as discussed in:
(1) finding No. 4(a), Part I, concerning the purpose of the Hopi
Tribe plan; finding No. 4(d), section I, A(3), concerning facilities
related to water supplies; and finding No. 4(e), section I, A(4),
concerning public facilities projects;
(2) finding No. 6(a), section II, B(1)(d)(ii), concerning the
priority 2 noncoal reclamation activities; and
(3) finding No. 9, Sec. 884.13(f)(2), concerning proposed deletion
of provisions related to a description of aesthetic, cultural and
recreational conditions of the Hopi Reservation.
The Director approves, as discussed in:
(1) finding No. 1, the Table of Contents, concerning the title of
Part II and List of Appendices; List of Addenda and Errata, concerning
the title; List of Figures, concerning the title of Figure 4 and
deletion of Figure 5; Chairman's Letter of Designation and Hopi Tribe
Resolution, concerning the designation of the Tribal agency authorized
to administer the approved plan; Opinion of Legal Counsel, concerning
the authority of the designated agency to conduct the AMLR program in
accordance with the requirements of Title IV of SMCRA; Part III,
concerning coordination of Tribal AML programs with other programs;
sections IV, A(2) (c), (d), (e), B(2), and C, concerning land
acquisition, management, and disposal; Part V and Figures 1 and 2,
concerning reclamation on private land; sections VI, A, B, and C,
concerning rights of entry; Part VII, concerning the Hopi DNR policy on
public participation; Part VIII and Figure 4, concerning organization
of the Hopi Tribe; Part IX, concerning personnel staffing policies;
Part X, concerning purchasing and procurement; Part XI, concerning
management accounting; deletion of sections 884.13(e) (1), (2), and
(3), concerning the purpose of Hopi Tribe reclamation plan and criteria
for ranking and identifying projects; Part XIII, concerning flora and
fauna; Appendices 1 through 12, concerning the addition of cover pages;
Appendix 7, concerning the title of the appendix; a memorandum from the
Assistant General Counsel/Legislative Counsel to DNR dated May 18,
1995, concerning the elimination of Title IV from the draft Hopi Code
Mining Ordinance; Hopi Tribal Council Resolution H-134-89, adopted
August 29, 1989; and a memorandum from the Hopi Tribe Office of
Financial Management to DNR dated September 7, 1995, concerning
purchasing procedures;
(2) finding No. 2, preface to the amended reclamation plan,
concerning program goals and objectives and eligible projects; section
I, B, concerning the designation of administrative authority; section
I, C, concerning reclamation priorities; sections I, C (4) and (5),
concerning deletion of existing C(4) and recodification of C (5) and
(6) as C (4) and (5); section I, C, concerning deletion of allocation
of funds provisions; sections II, A(1) (a) through (f), concerning
eligible coal lands and water; section II, A(1)(g), concerning
contractor responsibility; sections II, B(1) (a) and (b), concerning
eligible lands and water subsequent to certification; sections II,
B(1)(c), (d) (i) and (iii), (e), and (g), concerning reclamation
priorities for noncoal program; sections II, C through F, concerning
exclusion of certain noncoal reclamation sites, noncoal land
acquisition authority, limited liability, and contractor
responsibility; section II, H, concerning description of needs,
proposed construction and activities, and deletion of ranking and
selection of noncoal reclamation projects and Table I, Comprehensive/
Problem Evaluation Matrix; section IV, 2(b), concerning lands eligible
for acquisition; Part XII, concerning economic conditions of the Hopi
Reservation; and Appendix 1, concerning the amended constitution and
by-laws of the Hopi Tribe;
(3) finding No. 3, preface to the amended reclamation plan,
concerning the introductory paragraph;
(4) finding No. 4(b), section I, A(1), concerning the protection of
the health, safety, and general welfare of members of the Hopi Tribe
and finding No. 4(c), concerning the restoration of land and water
resources;
(5) finding No. 5(a), section II, A, concerning limited liability
provisions for coal reclamation activities and finding No. 5(c),
section II, A(1)(h), concerning reports;
(6) finding No. 6(b), section II, B(1)(f), concerning the need for
activities or construction of specific public facilities related to the
coal or mineral industry on Tribal lands impacted by coal or mineral
development and finding No. 6(c), section II, G, concerning reports;
(7) finding No. 7(b), section IV, A(2)(a)(i) concerning appraisals;
and
(8) finding No. 8, section VI, C, concerning entry for emergency
reclamation.
[[Page 17839]]
With the requirement that the Hopi Tribe further revise its plan
provisions, the Director approves, as discussed in:
(1) finding No. 5(b), section II, A(1), concerning the abatement of
any new coal problems that arise after the effective date of the
certification of completion of coal reclamation;
(2) finding No. 7(a), section IV, A(1), concerning the acquisition
of lands by the Hopi Tribe; and
(3) finding No. 7(c), section IV, B(1), concerning management of
acquired lands.
The Director approves the plan provisions as proposed by the Hopi
Tribe with the provision that they be fully promulgated in identical
form to the plan provisions submitted to and reviewed by OSM and the
public.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 756.17, codifying decisions
concerning the Hopi Tribe plan, are being amended to implement this
decision. This final rule is being made effective immediately to
expedite the Tribe plan amendment process and to encourage Tribes to
bring their plans into conformity with the Federal standards without
undue delay. Consistency of Tribe and Federal standards is required by
SMCRA
VI. Procedural Determinations
1. Executive Order 12866
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review).
2. Executive Order 12778
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 2 of Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform) and has
determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections
(a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not
applicable to the actual language of Tribe or State AMLR plans and
revisions thereof since each such plan is drafted and promulgated by a
specific Tribe or State, not by OSM. Decisions on proposed Tribe or
State AMLR plans and revisions thereof submitted by a Tribe or State
are based on a determination of whether the submittal meets the
requirements of title IV of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1231-1243) and the
applicable Federal regulations at 30 CFR Parts 884 and 888.
3. National Environmental Policy Act
No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since
agency decisions on proposed Tribe or State AMLR plans and revisions
thereof are categorically excluded from compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332) by the Manual of the
Department of the Interior (516 DM 6, appendix 8, paragraph 8.4B(29)).
4. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
5. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The Tribe or State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based
upon Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared
and certification made that such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements
established by SMCRA or previously promulgated by OSM will be
implemented by the Tribe or State. In making the determination as to
whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the
Department relied upon the data and assumptions in the analyses for the
corresponding Federal regulations.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 756
Abandoned mine reclamation programs, Indian lands, Surface mining,
Underground mining.
Dated: April 16, 1996.
Russell F. Price,
Acting Regional Director, Western Regional Coordinating Center.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 30, Chapter VII,
Subchapter E of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth
below:
PART 756--``INDIAN TRIBE ABANDONED MINE LAND RECLAMATION PROGRAMS''
1. The authority citation for Part 756 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. and Pub. L. 100-71.
2. Section 756.17 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 756.17 Approval of the Hopi Tribe's Abandoned Mine Land
Reclamation Plan Amendments.
The following amendments to the Hopi Tribe's abandoned mine land
reclamation plan are approved.
(a) The Hopi Tribe certification of completion of coal reclamation,
as submitted on February 2, 1994, is approved effective June 9, 1994.
(b) With the exceptions of Part I, concerning the purpose of the
Hopi tribe plan; section I, A(3) concerning facilities related to water
supplies; section I, A(4), concerning public facilities projects;
section II, B(1)(d)(ii), concerning the protection of property; and
section 884.13(f)(2), concerning a description of aesthetic, cultural
and recreational conditions of the Hopi Reservation, revisions to and
additions of the following plan provisions, as submitted to OSM on
November 2, 1995, are approved effective April 23, 1996.
Table of Contents--Title of Part II and List of Appendices;
List of Addenda and Errata--Title for this part;
List of Figures--Title of Figure 4 and deletion of Figure 5;
Preface to Amended Reclamation Plan--Introductory paragraph,
program goals and objectives, and eligible projects;
Chairman's Letter of Designation and Hopi Tribe Resolution--
Designation of Tribal agency authorized to administer approved plan;
Opinion of Legal Counsel--Authority of designated agency to
conduct the AMLR program in accordance with the requirements of
Title IV of SMCRA;
Section I, A(1)--Protection of the health, safety, and general
welfare of members of the Hopi Tribe;
Section I, A(2)--Restoration of land and water resources;
Section I, B--Designation of administrative authority;
Section I, C--Reclamation priorities;
Sections I, C (4) and (5)--Deletion of existing C(4) and
recodification of C(5) and (6) as C(4) and (5);
Section I, C--Deletion of allocation of funds provisions;
Section II, A--[Lack of] Limited liability provision for coal;
Section II, A(1)--Abatement of any new coal problems that arise
after the effective date of the certification of completion of coal
reclamation;
Sections II, A(1) (a) through (f)--Eligible coal lands and
water;
Section II, (A)(1)(g)--Contractor responsibility;
Section II, A(1)(h)--Reports;
Sections II, B(1) (a) and (b)--Eligible lands and water
subsequent to certification;
Sections II, B(1)(c), (d) (i) and (iii), (e), and (g)--
Reclamation priorities for noncoal program;
Section II, B(1)(f)--Need for activities or construction of
specific public facilities related to the coal or mineral industry
on Tribal lands impacted by coal or mineral development;
Section II, G--Reports;
Sections II, C through F--Exclusion of certain noncoal
reclamation sites, noncoal land acquisition authority, limited
liability, and contractor responsibility;
[[Page 17840]]
Section II, H and [deletion of] ranking and selection of noncoal
reclamation projects and Table I, Comprehensive/Problem Evaluation
Matrix--Description of needs, proposed construction and activities;
Part III--Coordination of Tribal AML programs with other
programs;
Section IV, A(1)--Acquisition of lands by the Hopi Tribe;
Section IV, A(2)(a)(i)--Appraisals;
Section IV, A(2)(b)--Lands eligible for acquisition;
Sections IV, A(2) (c), (d), (e), B(2), and C--Land acquisition,
management, and disposal;
Section IV, B(1)--Management of acquired lands;
Part V and Figures 1 and 2--Reclamation on private land;
Section VI, A, B, and C--Rights of entry;
Deletion of section VI, C--Entry for emergency reclamation;
Part VII--Hopi Department of Natural Resources (DNR) policy on
public participation;
Part VIII and Figure 4--Organization of the Hopi Tribe;
Part IX--Personnel staffing policies;
Part X--Purchasing and procurement;
Part XI--Management accounting;
[Deletion of] sections 884.13(e) (1), (2), and (3)--Purpose of
Hopi Tribe plan and criteria for ranking and identifying projects;
Part XII--Economic conditions of the Hopi Reservation;
Part XIII--Flora and fauna;
Appendices 1 through 12--Addition of cover pages;
Appendix 1--Constitution and By-Laws of the Hopi Tribe, as
amended;
Appendix 7--Title of the appendix;
Memorandum from the Assistant General Counsel/Legislation
Counsel to DNR dated May 18, 1995--Elimination of Title IV from the
draft Hopi Code Mining Ordinance;
Hopi Tribal Council Resolution H-134-89, adopted August 29,
1989; and
Memorandum from the Hopi Tribe Office of Financial Management to
DNR dated September 7, 1995--Purchasing procedures.
3. Section 756.18 is amended by adding paragraphs (a) through (h)
to read as follows:
Sec. 756.18 Required amendments to the Hopi Tribe's Abandoned Mine
Land Reclamation Plan.
* * * * *
(a) By June 24, 1996, the Hopi Tribe shall revise the introductory
paragraph at Part I, or otherwise revise the purpose of the Hopi Tribe
plan, to provide separate and distinct provisions for coal and noncoal
reclamation activities to be consistent with sections 403 and 411 of
SMCRA and in compliance with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR Parts
874 and 875 in order to properly reflect the objectives and priorities
for expenditures of monies from the abandoned mine land fund.
(b) By June 24, 1996, the Hopi Tribe shall delete section I, A(3)
and recodify any subsequent paragraphs accordingly, or otherwise revise
the Hopi Tribe plan, to provide appropriate provisions subsequent to
the certification of completion of coal reclamation.
(c) By June 24, 1996, the Hopi Tribe shall revise Section I, A(4),
or otherwise revise the Hopi Tribe plan, to require the same objectives
and priorities concerning public facilities as set forth at section
411(e) of SMCRA.
(d) By June 24, 1996, the Hopi Tribe shall revise Section II, A(1),
or otherwise revise the Hopi Tribe plan, to require that any coal
reclamation activities subsequent to certification of completion of
coal reclamation are subject to the provisions of sections 401 through
410 of SMCRA.
(e) By June 24, 1996, the Hopi Tribe shall revise Section II,
B(1)(d)(ii) by deleting the word ``property'' for priority 2 noncoal
reclamation, or otherwise revise the Hopi Tribe plan to provide for the
protection of public health, safety, and general welfare from the
adverse effects of mineral mining and processing practices.
(f) By June 24, 1996, the Hopi Tribe shall revise Section IV, A(1)
by deleting the word ``coal'' from the phrase ``coal refuse thereon,''
or otherwise revise the Hopi Tribe plan to ensure that lands eligible
for acquisition include those on which refuse from both coal and
noncoal mining practices are located.
(g) By June 24, 1996, the Hopi Tribe shall revise Section IV, B(1)
by reinstating the phrase ``may be used, pending.''
(h) By June 24, 1996, the Hopi Tribe shall revise the Hopi Tribe
plan by reinstating Section 884.13(f)(2), or otherwise modify its plan
to include information concerning significant esthetic, historic or
cultural, and recreational values.
[FR Doc. 96-9938 Filed 4-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9928 Department of Defense Commercial Air Carrier Quality and Safety Review Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17840-17841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9928]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Air Force
32 CFR Part 861
Department of Defense Commercial Air Carrier Quality and Safety
Review Program
AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, DoD.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Air Force revises its regulation on DoD
quality and safety criteria for air carriers providing or seeking to
provide airlift services to the DoD. The revision clarifies air carrier
prerequisites before an air carrier can solicit DoD business and be
used by DoD agencies. Specifically, the change clarifies that cargo
carriers must have previously performed cargo business in the 12
continuous months immediately prior to applying for DoD business. The
revision also changes the Commercial Airlift Review Board (CARB)
membership from six voting members to four.
This revision serves to notify the aviation industry of the above
changes. The changes are necessary for the DoD Commercial Airlift
Review Board to effectively and legally carry out its aviation safety
responsibilities as specified in the National Defense Authorizations
Act for fiscal year 1987.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 23, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dennis D. Emmons, Chief, DoD Air
Carrier Survey and Analysis Division, Directorate of Operations,
Headquarters Air Mobility Command (HQ AMC/DOB), Scott AFB IL 62225-
5302, telephone (618) 256-4801/4806.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This part is published as a final rule
because it implements Public Law 99-661 (FY87 National Defense
Authorization Act, Sec. 1204, Requirements Concerning Transportation of
Members of the Armed Forces by Chartered Aircraft) and DoD Directive
4500.53 (Commercial Passenger Airlift Management and Quality Control).
Additionally, and as part of the final rule determination, this part is
related to public contracts and to provisions for agency management.
The Department of the Air Force has determined that this regulation
is not a major rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, is not subject
to the relevant provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5
U.S.C. 601-661), does not contain reporting or recordkeeping
requirements under the criteria of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
(44 U.S.C. 35), and poses no negative environmental impact as defined
in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq).
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 861
Air carriers, Aviation safety.
Therefore, 32 CFR Part 861 is amended as follows:
PART 861--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMERCIAL AIR CARRIER QUALITY AND
SAFETY REVIEW PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for Part 861 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 10 U.S.C. 8013; 10 U.S.C. 2640.
[[Page 17841]]
2. Section 861.3 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 861.3 DOD commercial air carrier quality and safety requirements.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) Quality and Safety Requirements--prior experience. Commercial
air carriers or operators applying to conduct passenger or cargo
business for the United States Department of Defense are required to
possess 12 months of continuous service equivalent to the service
sought by DoD. The service must have been performed for the 12
continuous months immediately prior to applying for DoD business. Prior
experience must be equivalent in difficulty and complexity in regard to
distance, weather systems, international or national procedures,
similar aircraft, schedule demands, aircrew experience, and management
required.
* * * * *
3. Section 861.4 is amended by revising paragraph (g)(1) and (2) to
read as follows:
Sec. 861.4 DOD Commercial Airlift Review Board procedures.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) Four voting members will constitute the CARB; two senior,
knowledgeable individuals appointed by Commander, AMC; one similarly
knowledgeable individual appointed by USCINCTRANS; and one appointed by
Commander, MTMC. At least one of the voting HQ AMC members and the MTMC
member will be of general/flag officer or civilian equivalent rank.
Other non-voting CARB members will be appointed as necessary to
facilitate the CARB deliberative process. A non-voting recorder will
also be appointed.
(2) The HQ AMC senior member will act as the CARB chairperson. A
voting member who will not be present at any meeting of the CARB, may
be represented by a knowledgeable alternate empowered with the voting
responsibilities of the voting member. Three voting members (or their
alternate) shall constitute a quorum. Decisions shall be by majority
vote. In the case of a tie vote, the chairperson will have the deciding
vote.
* * * * *
Patsy J. Conner,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-9928 Filed 4-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3910-01-W
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9899 Regulations Governing the Financing of Commercial Sales of Agricultural Commodities
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17823-17824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9899]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 23, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 17823]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of the Secretary
7 CFR Part 17
Regulations Governing the Financing of Commercial Sales of
Agricultural Commodities
AGENCY: Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule amends regulations applicable to the financing of
the sale and exportation of agricultural commodities pursuant to title
I of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as
amended (Pub. L. 480).
The amendment deletes one document from the list of those documents
currently required to be submitted by the commodity supplier to the
banking institution to support a request for payment; and deletes the
contracting and documentary requirements for commodities which have not
been shipped under the program for a number of years.
The purpose of these changes is to reduce the documentation
required for payment to commodity suppliers and to simplify and shorten
the regulations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 23, 1996. See supplementary information for
compliance requirements.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Connie B. Delaplane, Director, Public Law 480 Operations Division,
Export Credits, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Room 4549, South Building, 14th and Independence, SW.,
Washington, DC 20250-1033. Telephone: (202) 720-3664.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule is issued in conformance
with Executive Order 12866. It has been determined to be significant
for the purposes of E.O. 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The General Sales Manager has
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. There will be no significant
economic impact from this final rule on small or large entities. A copy
of this final rule has been submitted to the General Counsel, Small
Business Administration.
Executive Order 12372
This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order
12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation with state and
local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart V,
published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983).
Executive Order 12778
This final rule has been reviewed under the Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. The final rule would have preemptive effect with
respect to any state or local laws, regulations, or policies which
conflict with such provisions or which otherwise impede their full
implementation. The final rule would not have retroactive effect. The
rule does not require that administrative remedies be exhausted before
suit may be filed.
Background
The Secretary of Agriculture implements title I of the Agricultural
Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended (Pub. L. 480).
This function is delegated to the General Sales Manager, Foreign
Agricultural Service. On August 22, 1995, the Foreign Agricultural
Service (FAS) published a proposed rule (60 FR 43566) to amend the
regulations governing the financing of the sale and exportation of
agricultural commodities made available under title I, Public Law 480.
Discussion of Comments
Only one comment was received, fully supporting the proposed
changes to the regulations: (1) Removing from the regulations
information regarding a number of inactive commodities and (2)
Eliminating one document currently required to be submitted by
commodity suppliers seeking payment.
Effective Date
The provisions of this rule shall apply to contracts entered into
under purchase authorizations issued on or after May 23, 1996.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule does not contain any information collection
requirements that require OMB approval under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 17
Agricultural commodities, Exports, Finance; Maritime carriers.
Accordingly, 7 CFR Part 17, Subpart A, is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1701-1705, 1736a, 1736c, 5676; E.O. 12220,
45 FR 44245.
Sec. 17.2 [Amended]
2. Section 17.2 is amended by removing the last sentence of the
definition of ``Form CCC-106'' in paragraph (b).
3. Section 17.14 is amended by removing the word ``(white)'' from
the first sentence of paragraph (d)(1); revising the last sentence of
paragraph (d)(1) and all of paragraph (d)(2)(i) to read as follows; and
removing the word ``(yellow)'' from paragraph (d)(2)(ii), as follows:
Sec. 17.14 Ocean transportation.
* * * * *
(d) Advice of vessel approval. * * *
(1) For cotton. * * * If CCC finances any part of the ocean freight
when cotton is shipped on an f.a.s. basis, a signed original copy of
this form will be issued to the ocean carrier.
(2) For commodities other than cotton. * * *
(i) For shipments to be made on an f.o.b. or f.a.s. basis, when CCC
finances any part of the cost of ocean freight, the original of Form
CCC-106-2 will be issued to the ocean carrier.
* * * * *
Sec. 17.18 [Amended]
4. Section 17.18 is amended by adding the phrase ``for c. & f. or
c.i.f. sales'' at the end of paragraph (c)(8)(ii).
[[Page 17824]]
Sec. 17.20 [Amended]
5. Section 17.20 is amended by changing the reference to ``sections
(V) and (W)'' to read ``sections (D) and (E)'' in paragraph (a)(9)(i).
Appendices A and B [Amended]
6. Appendix A and Appendix B are amended by removing existing
sections (D), (E), (G), (I), (J), (L), (M), (N), (O), (P), (Q), (R),
(S), (T), and (U); redesignating existing section ((K) as (G);
redesignating existing section (V) as (D); and redesignating existing
section (W) as (E).
7. Appendix B is amended by changing the reference to ``section
(K)(7)(b)'' to read ``section (G)(7)(b)'' in newly redesignated
paragraph (G)(1)(j) and by adding the phrase ``for c. & f. or c.i.f.
sales'' at the end of the following paragraphs: (A)(1)(d) and (2)(d);
(B)(4); (C)(1)(d) and (2)(d); newly redesignated (D)(4) and (E)(4);
(F)(1)(d) and (2)(d); newly redesignated (G)(1)(d) and (2)(d); and
(H)(1)(d) and (2)(d).
Signed at Washington, D.C. on February 22, 1996.
Christopher E. Goldthwait,
General Sales Manager, Foreign Agricultural Service and Vice President,
Commodity Credit Corporation.
[FR Doc. 96-9899 Filed 4-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-10-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9880 Special Local Regulations: River Race Augusta; Augusta, GA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17841-17842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9880]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[CGD07-96-028]
RIN 2115-AE46
Special Local Regulations: River Race Augusta; Augusta, GA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Temporary final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing temporary Special Local
Regulations for the River Race Augusta. This event will be held from 7
a.m. to 5 p.m. est (eastern standard time) on May 17, 18, and 19, 1996.
There will be approximately seventy-five participants racing 16 to 18
foot outboard power boats on that portion of the Savannah River at
Augusta, Georgia, between U.S. Highway 1 (Fifth St) Bridge at mile
marker 199.45 and Eliot's Fish Camp at mile marker 197. The boats will
be competing at high speeds and at close range on a prescribed course.
The nature of the event and the closure of the Savannah River creates
an extra or unusual hazard in the navigable waters. These temporary
regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on
navigable waters during the event.
EFFECTIVE DATES: This rule is effective from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. eastern
standard time on May 17, 18, and 19, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
ENS M.J. DaPonte, Coast Guard Group Charleston at (803) 724-7621.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553, a notice of
proposed rulemaking has not been published for these regulations and
good cause exists for making them effective in less than 30 days from
the date of publication. Following normal rulemaking procedures would
have been impractical. The information to hold the event was not
received until April 4, 1996, and there was not sufficient time
remaining to publish proposed rules in advance of the event or to
provide for a delayed effective date.
Discussion of Regulations
The temporary regulations are needed to provide for the safety of
life during River Race Augusta. These regulations are intended to
promote safe navigation on the waters off Augusta on the Savannah River
during the races by controlling the traffic entering, exiting, and
traveling within these waters. The anticipated concentration of
spectator and participant vessels associated with the River Race poses
a safety concern, which is addressed in these special local
regulations. The temporary regulations will not permit the entry or
movement of spectator vessels and other nonparticipating vessel traffic
between the U.S. Highway Route 1 (Fifth Street) Bridge at mile marker
199.45 and Eliot's Fish Camp at mile marker 197 from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.
est, on May 17, 18 and 19, 1996. The temporary regulations will permit
the movement of spectator vessels and other non-participants after the
termination of race each day, and during intervals between scheduled
events at the discretion of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under
Section 3(f) of the Executive Order 12866 and does not require an
assessment of the potential costs and benefits under Section 6(a)(3) of
that Order. It has been exempted from review by the Office of
Management and Budget under that order. It is not significant under the
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation
(DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the
economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full
Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies
and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. These temporary regulations will
last for only 10 hours each day of the event.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this action will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. ``Small
entities'' include independently owned and operated small businesses
that are not dominant in their field and that otherwise qualify as
``small business concerns'' under Section 3 of the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. 632).
For reasons set forth in the above Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast
Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Collection of Information
These temporary regulations contain no collection of information
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
Federalism
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that
[[Page 17842]]
the rulemaking does not have sufficient Federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environmental Assessment
The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this
action consistent with section 2.B.2. of Commandant Instruction
M16475.1B. In accordance with that section, this action has been
environmentally assessed (EA completed), and the Coast Guard has
concluded that it will not significantly affect the quality of the
human environment. An environmental assessment and a finding of no
significant impact have been prepared and are available in the docket
for inspection or copying.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.
Temporary Final Regulations
In consideration of the foregoing, Part 100 of Title 33, Code of
Federal Regulations, is amended as follows:
PART 100--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 100 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; 49 CFR 1.46 and 33 CFR 100.35.
2. A temporary Sec. 100.35-T96-028 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 100.35-T96-028 River Race Augusta; Savannah River, Augusta GA.
(a) Definitions:
(1) Regulated Area. The regulated area is formed by a line drawn
directly across the Savannah River at the U.S. Highway 1 (Fifth Street)
Bridge at mile marker 199.45 and directly across the Savannah River at
Eliot's Fish Camp at mile marker 197. The regulated area encompasses
the width of the Savannah River between these two lines.
(2) Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander
is a commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has
been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Group Charleston, South
Carolina.
(b) Special Local Regulations.
(1) Entry into the regulated area is prohibited to all non
participants.
(2) After termination of the River Race Augusta each day, and
during intervals between scheduled events, at the discretion of the
Coast Guard Patrol Commander, all vessels may resume normal operations.
(c) Effective Dates: This section is effective at 7 a.m. and
terminates at 5 p.m. EST on May 17, 18 and 19, 1996, unless otherwise
specified in the Seventh Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners.
Dated: April 10, 1996.
P.J. Cardaci,
Captain U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District,
Acting.
[FR Doc. 96-9880 Filed 4-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9872 Information Form and Post-Effective Reporting Requirements for Agreements Among Ocean Common Carriers Subject to the Shipping Act of 1984
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 23, 1996)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 17849] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 96-9872] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 46 CFR Part 572 [Docket No. 94-31] Information Form and Post-Effective Reporting Requirements for Agreements Among Ocean Common Carriers Subject to the Shipping Act of 1984 AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission. ACTION: Final Rule; Extension of time for filing Petition for Reconsideration. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: On March 21, 1996, (61 FR 11564), the Federal Maritime Commission published a final rule amending its regulations governing the information submission requirements for agreements among ocean carriers subject to the Shipping Act of 1984. Extension of time for filing a petition for reconsideration has been requested by the Asia North America Eastbound Rate Agreement, Japan-United States Eastbound Freight Conference, Transpacific Westbound Rate Agreement and their members. The request is granted; this extension does not affect the effective date of the final rule. DATES: Petition for Reconsideration due May 19, 1996. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph C. Polking, Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol St., NW., Washington, D.C. 20573, (202) 523-5725. Joseph C. Polking, Secretary. [FR Doc. 96-9872 Filed 4-22-96; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9870 Animal Drugs, Feeds, and Related Products; Change of Sponsor
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17829-17830]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9870]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
21 CFR Part 529
Animal Drugs, Feeds, and Related Products; Change of Sponsor
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect the change of sponsor for an approved
abbreviated new animal drug application (ANADA) from Macleod
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to Anthony Products Co.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 23, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. McKay, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-102), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-0213.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Macleod Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2600 Canton
Ct., Fort Collins, CO 80525, has informed FDA that it has transferred
the ownership of, and all rights and interests in, approved ANADA 200-
115 (Gentamicin Sulfate) to Anthony Products Co., 5600 Peck Rd.,
Arcadia, CA 91006. Accordingly, FDA is amending the regulations in 21
CFR 529.1044a to reflect the change of sponsor.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 529
Animal drugs.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and
under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 529 is
amended as follows:
PART 529--CERTAIN OTHER DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS NOT SUBJECT TO
CERTIFICATION
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 529 continues to read as
follows:
[[Page 17830]]
Authority: Sec. 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(21 U.S.C. 360b).
Sec. 529.1044a [Amended]
2. Section 529.1044a Gentamicin sulfate intrauterine solution is
amended in paragraph (b) by removing ``000061, 000856, 054273, 057561,
and 058711'' and adding in its place, ``000061, 000856, 000864, 054273,
and 057561''.
Dated: April 4, 1996.
Robert C. Livingston,
Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary
Medicine.
[FR Doc. 96-9870 Filed 4-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9783 Secondary Direct Food Additives Permitted in Food for Human Consumption
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17828-17829]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9783]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 173
[Docket No. 94F-0358]
Secondary Direct Food Additives Permitted in Food for Human
Consumption
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the food
additive regulations to provide for the safe use of acidified solutions
of sodium chlorite in poultry processing water. This action is in
response to a petition filed by Alcide Corp.
DATES: Effective April 23, 1996; written objections and requests for a
hearing by May 23, 1996. The Director of the Office of the Federal
Register approves the incorporation by reference in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 of certain publications listed in new
Sec. 173.325, effective April 23, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit written objections to the Dockets Management Branch
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23,
Rockville, MD 20857.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert L. Martin, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-217), Food and Drug Administration,
200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204-0001, 202-418-3074.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal
Register of November 1, 1994 (59 FR 54609), FDA announced that a food
additive petition (FAP 4A4433) had been filed by Alcide Corp., Inc.,
8561 154th Ave. NE., Redmond, WA 98052, proposing that the food
additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of
acidified solutions of sodium chlorite/chlorous acid in poultry
processing water.
FDA has evaluated data in the petition and other relevant material
and has consulted with scientists in the Food Safety and Inspection
Service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture concerning the
technological and practical aspects of the proposed use of acidified
solutions of sodium chlorite. The agency concludes that the proposed
use of the additive is safe and will have the intended technical effect
of reducing microbial contamination on poultry. The agency also
concludes that the regulation approving the additive should be entitled
``acidified sodium chlorite solutions.'' Acidification of sodium
chlorite results in partial conversion of chlorite to chlorous acid.
Also, in the notice of filing, FDA announced that the petition proposed
to allow the use of any of the following acids to prepare acidified
sodium chlorite solutions: Phosphoric acid, citric acid, hydrochloric
acid, lactic acid, malic acid, or sulfuric acid. These acids are all
generally recognized as safe (GRAS) acids. The agency has concluded
that the use of any GRAS acid is appropriate, and is codifying this
conclusion in the regulation. Therefore, 21 CFR part 173 is amended as
set forth below.
In accordance with Sec. 171.1(h) (21 CFR 171.1(h)), the petition
and the documents that FDA considered and relied upon in reaching its
decision to
[[Page 17829]]
approve the petition are available for inspection at the Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition by appointment with the information
contact person listed above. As provided in Sec. 171.1(h), the agency
will delete from the documents any materials that are not available for
public disclosure before making the documents available for inspection.
In the notice of filing for this petition FDA gave interested
parties an opportunity to submit comments on the petitioner's
environmental assessment. FDA received no comments in response to that
notice.
The agency has carefully considered the potential environmental
effects of this action. FDA has concluded that the action will not have
a significant impact on the human environment, and that an
environmental impact statement is not required. The agency's finding of
no significant impact and the evidence supporting that finding,
contained in an environmental assessment, may be seen in the Dockets
Management Branch (address above) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
Any person who will be adversely affected by this regulation may at
any time on or before May 23, 1996, file with the Dockets Management
Branch (address above) written objections thereto. Each objection shall
be separately numbered, and each numbered objection shall specify with
particularity the provisions of the regulation to which objection is
made and the grounds for the objection. Each numbered objection on
which a hearing is requested shall specifically so state. Failure to
request a hearing for any particular objection shall constitute a
waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection. Each numbered
objection for which a hearing is requested shall include a detailed
description and analysis of the specific factual information intended
to be presented in support of the objection in the event that a hearing
is held. Failure to include such a description and analysis for any
particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a
hearing on the objection. Three copies of all documents shall be
submitted and shall be identified with the docket number found in
brackets in the heading of this document. Any objections received in
response to the regulation may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 173
Food additives, Incorporation by reference.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
173 is amended as follows:
PART 173--SECONDARY DIRECT FOOD ADDITIVES PERMITTED IN FOOD FOR
HUMAN CONSUMPTION
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 173 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 402, 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348).
2. New Sec. 173.325 is added to subpart D to read as follows:
Sec. 173.325 Acidified sodium chlorite solutions.
Acidified sodium chlorite solutions may be safely used in
accordance with the following prescribed conditions:
(a) The additive is produced by mixing an aqueous solution of
sodium chlorite (CAS Reg. No. 7758-19-2) with any generally recognized
as safe (GRAS) acid.
(b) The additive is used as an antimicrobial agent in poultry
processing water as a component of a carcass spray or dip solution
prior to immersion of the carcass in a prechiller or chiller tank, or
in a prechiller or chiller solution in accordance with current industry
practice for use of poultry processing water.
(1) When used in a carcass spray or dip solution, the additive is
used at levels that result in sodium chlorite concentrations between
500 and 1,200 parts per million (ppm), in combination with any GRAS
acid at levels sufficient to achieve a solution pH of 2.5 to 2.9. The
concentration of sodium chlorite is determined by a method entitled
``Determination of Sodium Chlorite: 50 ppm to 1500 ppm Concentration,''
which is incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)
and 1 CFR part 51. Copies are available from the Division of Petition
Control (HFS-215), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food
and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204-0001, or
may be examined at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition's
Library, Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., rm. 3321,
Washington, DC, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North
Capitol St. NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(2) When used in a prechiller or chiller tank, the additive is used
at levels that result in sodium chlorite concentrations between 50 and
150 ppm, in combination with any GRAS acid at levels sufficient to
achieve a solution pH of 2.8 to 3.2. The concentration of sodium
chlorite is determined by a method entitled ``Determination of Sodium
Chlorite: 50 ppm to 1500 ppm Concentration,'' which is incorporated by
reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. The
availability of this method is listed in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section.
Dated: April 11, 1996.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 96-9783 Filed 4-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9740 Tribal Self-Governance Program Interim Rule Establishing Procedures for Awarding Negotiation/Planning Grants
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17830-17833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9740]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
25 CFR Part 1001
RIN 1076-AD26
Tribal Self-Governance Program Interim Rule Establishing
Procedures for Awarding Negotiation/Planning Grants
AGENCY: Office of Self-Governance, Office of the Secretary, Interior.
ACTION: Interim rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this interim rule, the Office of Self-Governance (OSG)
establishes procedures for awarding negotiation grants; advance
planning grants; and negotiation/planning grants to negotiate for
Department of the Interior (DOI) non-Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
programs, pursuant to the Tribal Self-Governance Act.
DATES: The effective date of this interim rule is April 19, 1996. OSG
will consider Written comments on the interim rule when revising this
rule. To be considered, comments must be received on or before May 31,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on the interim rule should be sent to the
Director, Office of Self-Governance, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Mail Stop 2548, 1849 C Street NW., Washington DC 20240.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Kenneth D. Reinfeld, U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of
Self-Governance, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop 2548, Washington DC
20240, 202-219-0240.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Justification for Interim Rule
This rule is not a rulemaking subject to the provisions of section
553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551, et seq.) (APA).
Section 553(a)(2) excepts from the scope of rulemaking rules ``relating
to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants,
benefits, or contracts.''
Even if this rule were considered rulemaking subject to the
provisions of section 553 of the APA, good cause exists to publish this
interim rule without prior opportunity for public comment.
Section 553 outlines the following rulemaking steps: (1)
Publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking, (2) solicitation of
public comment on the proposed rule, (3) review of comments received
prior to developing the final rule, and (4) publication of the final
rule 30 days prior to the effective date. Using this process at this
time would not serve the goal of the Tribal Self-Governance Act of
1994, which is to expand tribal participation in the tribal self-
governance program, because the process would diminish the ability of
some selected tribes/consortia to effectively negotiate agreements for
fiscal year 1997 or calendar year 1997. The process would also diminish
the ability of other tribes/consortia in the near term to plan for and
possibly delay their participation in tribal self-governance.
The Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-413) was
enacted and became effective on October 25, 1994. While the interim
rule may be changed by later rulemaking, the Act stipulates that the
lack of promulgated regulations will not limit the Act's effect.
Under section 402(b) of the Act, the Director, Office of Self-
Governance may select up to 20 additional participating tribes/
consortia per year for the tribal self-governance program, and
negotiate and enter into an annual written funding agreement with each
participating tribe. In order to complete the negotiation process for
1997 funding agreements, it is necessary to make available negotiation
grants to the new tribes by May 15, 1996. The Act mandates that the
Secretary submit copies of the funding agreements at least 90 days
before the proposed effective date to the appropriate committees of the
Congress and to each tribe that is served by the BIA agency that is
serving the tribe that is a party to the funding agreement. Initial
negotiations with a tribe/consortium located in an area and/or agency
which has not previously been involved with self-governance
negotiations, will take approximately two months from start to finish.
Publication of this interim rule without prior opportunity for
public comment is necessary to complete the above procedures in a
timely fashion. Therefore, applying the criteria at 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d), good cause exists to make the rule effective
less than thirty days from today's date.
Background
The tribal self-governance program is designed to promote self
determination by allowing tribes to assume more control through
negotiated agreements of programs operated by the Department of the
Interior. The new law allows for negotiations to be conducted for
programs operated by BIA and for programs operated by other bureaus and
offices within the Department that are available to Indians or when
there is an historical, cultural, or geographic connection to an Indian
tribe.
The Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994 requires the Secretary, upon
request of a majority of self-governance tribes, to initiate procedures
under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, 5 U.S.C. 561 et seq., to negotiate
and promulgate regulations necessary to carry out the tribal self-
governance program. The Act calls for a negotiated rulemaking committee
to be established pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 565 comprised of Federal and
tribal representatives, with a majority of the tribal representatives
representing self-governance tribes. The Act also authorizes the
Secretary to adapt negotiated rulemaking procedures to the unique
context of self-governance and the government-to-government
relationship between the United States and the Indian tribes. On
November 1, 1994, a majority of self-governance tribes wrote the
Secretary requesting the immediate initiation of negotiated rulemaking.
On February 15, 1995, the self-governance negotiated rulemaking
committee was established.
On the same day, an interim rule was published in the Federal
Register at 60 FR 8553 announcing the criteria for tribes to be
included in an applicant pool and the establishment of the selection
process for tribes to negotiate agreements pursuant to the Tribal Self-
Governance Act of 1994. This interim rule allowed an additional 20 new
tribes/consortia to negotiate compacts and annual funding agreements
for fiscal year 1996 and calendar year 1996 as authorized by the Act.
Using the same interim rule, a notice of deadline for submitting
completed applications to begin participation in tribal self-governance
in fiscal year 1997 or calendar year 1997 was published in the Federal
Register on February 1, 1996. To date, a total of 54 compacts and
annual funding agreements have been negotiated.
Since publication of the interim rule, the self-governance
negotiated rulemaking committee has reached
[[Page 17831]]
tentative agreement on draft provisions relating to the procedures for
awarding negotiation grants; advance planning grants; and negotiation/
planning grants to negotiate for DOI non-BIA programs. These provisions
along with other sections of the negotiated rules are subject to notice
and public comment procedures as part of the rulemaking process. Given
the fact that more time is needed to reach agreement on other sections
of the negotiated rules, it is not possible to provide notice and
obtain public comment on the rule so as to award the grants in a timely
fashion using fiscal year 1996 funds.
Purpose of Rule
This interim rule establishes procedures which are consistent with
the self-governance negotiated rulemaking committee's negotiations for
awarding negotiation and planning grants. The interim rule is intended
to allow the grants to be awarded using fiscal year 1996 funds.
This interim rule will take immediate effect to allow the grant
selection process for the upcoming year to begin under an interim rule
that has been tentatively agreed upon by the self-governance negotiated
rulemaking committee.
The Department is adopting this rule before the self-governance
negotiated rulemaking process is completed. This interim rule will be
subject to negotiation and amendment by the negotiated rulemaking
process. The self-governance negotiated rulemaking committee will use
any comments received following the publication of this interim rule in
negotiating the final rule. Furthermore, the portion of the interim
rule governing the awarding of the grants will be subject to additional
comment once the proposed regulations recommended by the self-
governance rulemaking committee are published in the Federal Register.
The final published rule will supersede this interim rule.
A. E.O. 12612
The Department has determined that this interim rule does not have
significant federalism effects.
B. E.O. 12630
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the Department has
determined that this interim rule does not have significant takings
implications.
C. E.O. 2778
The Department has certified to the Office of Management and Budget
that this interim rule meets the applicable standards provided in
sections 2(a) and 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.
D. E.O. 12886
This interim rule is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, and therefore will not be reviewed by the Office
of Management and Budget.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement
This interim rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
F. NEPA Statement
The Department has determined that this interim rule does not
constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
G. Information Collection Statement
The information collection requirements contained in this interim
rule are included in current collections 1076-0090, 0091, 0096, 1030
and OMB Circulars A-102, A-110, and SF-424.
H. Authorship Statement
The primary author of this document is Dr. Kenneth Reinfield,
Office of Self- Governance.
List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 1001
Indians, Native Americans.
For the reasons given in the preamble, title 25, part 1001 is
amended as follows:
PART 1001--SELF-GOVERNANCE PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for part 1001 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 450 note, 458aa-458gg.
2. Sections 1001.7 through 1001.10 are added to read as follows:
Sec. 1001.7 Availability, amount, and number of planning and
negotiation grants.
(a) What is the purpose of this section? This section describes how
to apply for planning and negotiation grants authorized by section
402(d) of the Act to help meet tribal costs incurred:
(1) In meeting the planning phase requirement of Pub. L. 103-413,
including planning to negotiate non-BIA programs, services, functions
and activities; and
(2) In conducting negotiations.
(b) What types of grants are available? Three categories of grants
may be available:
(1) Negotiation grants for tribes/consortia selected from the
applicant pool as described in Sec. 1001.5 of these regulations;
(2) Planning grants for tribes/consortia requiring advance funding
to meet the planning phase requirement of Pub. L. 103-413; and
(3) Financial assistance for tribes/consortia to plan for
negotiating for non-BIA programs, services, functions and activities,
as described in Sec. 1001.10.
(c) Will grants always be made available to meet the planning phase
requirement as described in section 402(d) of Pub. L. 103-413? No.
Grants to cover some or all of the planning costs that a tribe/
consortium may incur may be made available depending upon the
availability of funds appropriated by Congress. We will publish notice
of availability of grants in the Federal Register as described in this
section.
(d) May a tribe use its own resources to meet its planning and
negotiation expenses in preparation for entering into self-governance?
Yes. A tribe/consortium may use its own resources to meet these costs.
Receiving a grant is not necessary to meet the planning phase
requirement of the Act or to negotiate a compact and annual funding
agreement.
(e) What happens if there are insufficient funds to meet the
anticipated tribal requests for planning and negotiation grants in any
given year? If appropriated funds are available but insufficient to
meet the total requests from tribes/consortia, we will give first
priority to those that have been selected from the applicant pool to
negotiate an annual funding agreement. We will give second priority to
tribes/consortia that require advance funds to meet the planning
requirement for entry into the self-governance program. We will give
third priority to tribes/consortia that require negotiation/planning
funds to negotiate for DOI non-BIA programs.
(f) How many grants will the Department make each year and what
funding will be available? The number and size of grants awarded each
year will depend on Congressional appropriations and tribal interest.
Each year, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register which
provides relevant details about the application process, including: The
funds available, timeframes, and requirements for negotiation and
advance planning specified in this part.
[[Page 17832]]
Sec. 1001.8 Selection criteria for tribes/consortia to receive a
negotiation grant.
(a) Who may be selected to receive a negotiation grant? Any tribe/
consortium that has been accepted into the applicant pool in accordance
with Sec. 1001.5 and has been selected to negotiate a self-governance
annual funding agreement is eligible to apply for a negotiation grant.
Each year, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register with all
relevant details as to how tribes/consortia which have been selected
can apply for negotiation grants.
(b) What must a tribe/consortium do to receive a negotiation grant?
(1) To receive a negotiation grant, a tribe/consortium must:
(i) Be selected from the applicant pool to negotiate an annual
funding agreement;
(ii) Be identified as eligible to receive a negotiation grant; and
(iii) Not have received a negotiation grant within the 3 years
preceding the date of the latest Federal Register announcement
described in Sec. 1001.7.
(2) The tribe/consortium must submit a letter affirming its
readiness to negotiate and formally request a negotiation grant to
prepare for and negotiate a self-governance agreement. These grants are
not competitive.
(c) May a selected tribe negotiate without applying for a
negotiation grant? Yes. In this case, the tribe should notify us in
writing so that funds can be reallocated for other grants.
Sec. 1001.9 Selection criteria for tribes/consortia seeking advance
planning grant funding.
(a) Who is eligible to apply for a planning grant that will be
awarded before a tribe/consortium is admitted into the applicant pool?
Any tribe/consortium that is not a self-governance tribe and needs
advance funding in order to complete the planning phase requirement may
apply. Tribes/consortia that have received a planning grant within 3
years preceding the date of the latest Federal Register announcement
described in Sec. 1001.7 are not eligible.
(b) What must a tribe/consortium seeking a planning grant submit in
order to meet the planning phase requirements? A tribe/consortium must
submit the following material:
(1) a tribal resolution or other final action of the tribal
governing body indicating a desire to plan for tribal self-governance;
(2) audits from the last 3 years which document that the tribe
meets the requirement of being free from any material audit exception;
(3) a proposal that describes the tribe's/consortium's plans to
conduct:
(i) legal and budgetary research, and
(ii) internal tribal government and organization planning;
(4) a timeline indicating when planning will start and end; and
(5) evidence that the tribe/consortium can perform the tasks
associated with its proposal (i.e., submit resumes and position
descriptions of key staff or consultants to be used).
(c) How will tribes/consortia know when and how to apply for
planning grants? Each year, we will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of the availability of planning grants for additional tribes as
described in Sec. 1001.7. This notice will identify the specific
details for applying.
(d) What criteria will be used to award planning grants to those
tribes/consortia requiring advance funding to meet the planning phase
requirement of Public Law 103-413? Advance planning grants are
discretionary and based on need. The following criteria will be used to
determine whether to award a planning grant to a tribe/consortium
before the tribe is being selected into the applicant pool:
(1) A complete application as described in Secs. 1001.9(b) and
1001.9(c);
(2) A demonstration of financial need. We will rank applications
according to the percentage of tribal resources to total resources as
indicated in the latest A-128 audit. We will give priority to
applications that demonstrate financial need by having a lower level of
tribal resources as a percent of total resources; and
(3) Other factors that demonstrate the readiness of the tribe/
consortium to enter into a self-governance agreement, including
previous efforts of the tribe/consortium to participate in self-
governance.
(e) Can tribes/consortia that receive advance planning grants also
apply for a negotiation grant? Yes. Tribes/consortia that receive
advance planning grants may submit a completed application to be
included in the applicant pool. Once approved for inclusion in the
applicant pool, the tribe/consortium may apply for a negotiation grant
according to the process identified in Sec. 1001.7 above.
(f) When and how will a tribe/consortium know whether it has been
selected to receive an advance planning grant? Within 30 days of the
deadline for submitting applications we will notify the tribe/
consortium by letter whether it has been selected to receive an advance
planning grant.
Sec. 1001.10 Selection criteria for other planning and negotiating
financial assistance.
(a) What is the purpose of this section? This section describes how
to apply for other financial assistance for planning and negotiating of
a DOI non-BIA program, service, function or activity that may be
available, as well as the selection process.
(b) Are there other funds that may be available to self-governance
tribes/consortia for planning and negotiating with DOI non-BIA bureaus?
Yes.Tribes/consortia may contact the Director, Office of Self-
Governance to determine if funds are available for the purpose of
planning and negotiating with DOI non-BIA bureaus under this section. A
tribe/consortium may also request information from a DOI non-BIA bureau
on any funds which may be available from that bureau.
(c) Who is eligible to apply for financial assistance to plan and
negotiate for a DOI non-BIA program? Any existing self-governance
tribe/consortium is eligible.
(d) Under what circumstances may planning and negotiation financial
assistance be made available to tribes/consortia? At the discretion of
the Director, grants may be awarded when requested by the tribe and
coordinated with the DOI non-BIA agency involved.
(e) How does the tribe/consortium apply for a grant to plan and
negotiate for a DOI non-BIA program? When such funds are available, we
will publish a notice of their availability and a deadline for
submitting applications for such grants in the Federal Register as
indicated in Sec. 1001.7.
(f) What must be included in the application? The application must
include the following:
(1) the tribal resolution or other final action of the tribal
governing body indicating that the tribe/consortium intends to
negotiate for a DOI non-BIA program;
(2) a copy of the proposal or summary that was submitted to the DOI
non-BIA bureau;
(3) a time line indicating when planning will begin and end;
(4) the planning resources from all other sources that are approved
and/or anticipated for the planning activity; and
(5) the amount requested and a justification of why it is needed by
the tribe/consortium.
(g) What criteria will we use to award grants to those tribes/
consortia requesting financial assistance to plan and negotiate for a
DOI non-BIA program? The award of such grants is discretionary. After
consulting with the
[[Page 17833]]
requesting tribe/consortium and the appropriate DOI non-BIA bureau, the
Director will determine whether to award a grant to plan and negotiate
for a DOI non-BIA program. The determination will be based upon the
complexity of the project, the availability of resources from all other
sources, and the relative need of the tribe/consortium to receive such
funds for the successful completion of the planning and negotiating
activity, as determined by the percentage of tribal resources to total
resources as indicated in the latest A-128 audit. All decisions to
award or not to award grants as described in paragraphs (e) and (f) of
this section are final for the Department.
Dated: April 4, 1996.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-9740 Filed 4-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9339 Airworthiness Directives; Saab Model SAAB SF340A and SAAB 340B Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17825-17826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9339]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-121-AD; Amendment 39-9572; AD 96-08-06]
Airworthiness Directives; Saab Model SAAB SF340A and SAAB 340B
Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain Saab Model SAAB SF340A and SAAB 340B series
airplanes, that requires visual and dye penetrant inspection(s) to
detect cracks of the nose rib of the rudder, and stop drilling and
blending of minor cracks. This amendment also requires replacement of
the nose rib with a new nose rib and reinforcement of the nose rib, if
extensive cracking is detected or if an operator elects to terminate
the repetitive inspections. This amendment is prompted by the result of
an inspection that revealed a cracked nose rib on the front spar of the
rudder due to vibration-related stress. The actions specified by this
AD are intended to prevent such stress and cracking, which could result
in the deformation of the nose rib; this condition may lead to friction
and jamming between the fin and the rudder and subsequent reduced
controllability of the airplane.
DATES: Effective May 23, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of May 23, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from SAAB Aircraft AB, SAAB Aircraft Product Support, S-
581.88, Linkoping, Sweden. This information may be examined at the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate,
Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite
700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth Harder, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-1721; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Saab Model SAAB SF340A and
SAAB 340B series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on
January 9, 1996 (61 FR 640). That action proposed to require visual and
dye penetrant inspection(s) to detect cracks of the nose rib of the
rudder, and stop drilling and blending of minor cracks. That action
also proposed to require replacement of the nose rib with a new nose
rib and reinforcement of the nose rib, if any extensive crack is
detected or if an
[[Page 17826]]
operator elects to terminate the repetitive inspections.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the single comment received.
The commenter supports the proposed rule.
After careful review of the available data, including the comment
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.
The FAA estimates that 221 Saab Model SAAB SF340A and SAAB 340B
series airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it
will take approximately 4 work hours per airplane to accomplish the
required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour.
Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection requirement
of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $53,040, or $240 per
airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD
action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the
future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations adopted herein will 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 final
rule does 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) 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 final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-08-06 Saab Aircraft AB: Amendment 39-9572. Docket 95-NM-121-AD.
Applicability: Model SAAB. SF340A series airplanes having serial
numbers (S/N) 004 through 159 inclusive, and Model SAAB 340B having
S/N's 160 through 369 inclusive; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent vibration-related stress and cracking and consequent
deformation of the nose rib, which could result in friction and
jamming between the fin and the rudder and subsequent reduced
controllability of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Prior to the accumulation of 2,400 total flight hours, or
within 800 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later, perform a visual and dye penetrant
inspection to detect cracks of the nose rib of the rudder, in
accordance with Saab Service Bulletin 340-55-032, dated May 22,
1995.
(1) If no cracks are detected, repeat the inspection thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 800 flight hours, or replace the nose rib
with a new nose rib and reinforce it, in accordance with the service
bulletin. Accomplishment of the replacement and reinforcement
constitutes terminating action for this AD.
(2) If any minor crack [less than 25.4 mm (1.0 inch) long] is
detected, prior to further flight, stop drill and blend the crack in
accordance with the service bulletin. Repeat the inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 800 flight hours, or replace
the nose rib with a new nose rib and reinforce it, in accordance
with the service bulletin. Accomplishment of the replacement and
reinforcement constitutes terminating action for this AD.
(3) If any extensive crack [greater than or equal to 25.4 mm
(1.0 inch) long] is detected, prior to further flight, replace the
nose rib with a new nose rib and reinforce it, in accordance with
the service bulletin. Accomplishment of this replacement and
reinforcement constitutes terminating action for this AD.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their
requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) The actions shall be done in accordance with Saab Service
Bulletin 340-55-032, dated May 22, 1995. This incorporation by
reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be
obtained from SAAB Aircraft AB, SAAB Aircraft Product Support, S-
581.88, Linkoping, Sweden. Copies may be inspected at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North
Capitol Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(e) This amendment becomes effective on May 23, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 10, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-9339 Filed 4-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9338 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400 Series Airplanes Powered by General Electric CF6-80C2 or Pratt & Whitney PW4000 Series Engines
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17824-17825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9338]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-98-AD; Amendment 39-9571; AD 96-08-05]
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400 Series Airplanes
Powered by General Electric CF6-80C2 or Pratt & Whitney PW4000 Series
Engines
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain Boeing Model 747-400 series airplanes, that
requires modification of the engine fuel feed system. This amendment is
prompted by reports indicating that the coupling nut on the fuel tube
on the outboard strut (engine position 1) fractured. The actions
specified by this AD are intended to prevent such fracturing of the
coupling nut, which could result in release of fuel onto the engine
cowling and a subsequent fire.
DATES: Effective May 23, 1996. -
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of May 23, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules
Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of
the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tamra J. Elkins, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; telephone (206) 227-
2669; fax (206) 227-1181.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 747-400
series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on December 12,
1995 (60 FR 63663). That action proposed to require modification of the
engine fuel feed system. -
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received. -
One commenter supports the proposed rule. -
The Air Transport Association (ATA) of America, on behalf of one of
its members, requests that the proposed compliance time be extended
from 18 months to 24 months to provide time for operators to procure
replacement kits and to accomplish the proposed actions during a
regularly scheduled maintenance (``C'') check. The FAA concurs with the
commenter's request. The FAA finds that extending the compliance time
to 24 months will not compromise safety; will allow operators
sufficient time to procure the necessary replacement kits (estimated by
the manufacturer to take approximately nine months); and will allow the
modification to be accomplished during a ``C'' check interval (15
months for most operators) at a main maintenance base where special
equipment and trained personnel will be available if necessary. -
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule with the change previously
described. The FAA has determined that this change will neither
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of
the AD. -
There are approximately 226 Model 747-400 series airplanes of the
affected design in the worldwide fleet. -
The FAA estimates that 34 airplanes of U.S. registry will be
required by this AD to replace the strut fuel tubes and couplings at
engine positions 1 and 4 in accordance with Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-28A2185. That replacement will take approximately 74 work
hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per
work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $9,582 per airplane.
Based on these figures, the cost impact of this required replacement on
U.S. operators is estimated to be $476,748, or $14,022 per airplane. -
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD
action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the
future if this AD were not adopted. -
Currently, there are no Model 747-400 series airplanes on the U.S.
Register that would be required by this AD to accomplish the
installation specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28-2146 [and
required by paragraph (a)(2) of the final rule]. However, should an
affected airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the
future, it would require approximately 162 work hours per airplane (81
work hours per engine; 2 engines per airplane) to accomplish the
installation, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required
parts would cost approximately $9,582 per airplane. Based on these
figures, the cost impact of this installation would be $19,302 per
airplane. -
The regulations adopted herein will 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 final
rule does 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) will not have a
significant economic
[[Page 17825]]
impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final
evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the
location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 -
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment -
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES -
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended] -
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-08-05 Boeing: Amendment 39-9571. Docket 95-NM-98-AD.
-Applicability: Model 747-400 series airplanes powered by
General Electric CF6-80C2 or Pratt & Whitney PW4000 series engines;
as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2185, Revision
1, dated September 21, 1995, and Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28-
2146, dated August 13, 1992; certificated in any category.
-Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it. -
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously. -
To prevent fracturing of the coupling nut, which could result in
release of fuel onto the engine cowling and a subsequent fire,
accomplish the following: -
(a) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD,
accomplish the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2), as
applicable. -
(1) For Model 747-400 series airplanes identified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-28A2185, Revision 1, dated September 21,
1995: Replace the strut fuel tubes and couplings at engine numbers 1
and 4 with new redesigned (shrouded) couplings, in accordance with
that alert service bulletin. -
(2) For Model 747-400 series airplanes having variable numbers
RT641 through RT650 inclusive, identified in Boeing Service Bulletin
747-28-2146, dated August 13, 1992: On engine positions 1 and 4
only, install new fuel lines, shrouded fuel line couplings (between
the strut mid bulkhead and the wing front spar), and drain lines in
accordance with that service bulletin. -
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Seattle ACO.
-Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Seattle ACO.
-(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished. -
(d) The actions shall be done in accordance with Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-28A2185, Revision 1, dated September 21, 1995,
and Boeing Service Bulletin 747-28-2146, dated August 13, 1992. This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. Copies may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group,
P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Copies may be
inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
-
(e) This amendment becomes effective on May 23, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 10, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-9338 Filed 4-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.