issue-1996-06-04•Federal Register final rules — 1996-06-04
Federal Register final rules — 1996-06-04
issue-1996-06-04Federal Register final rules — 1996-06-04Regulation
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. 96-13987 Suspension of Community Eligibility
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28067-28069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13987]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
44 CFR Part 64
[Docket No. FEMA-7642]
Suspension of Community Eligibility
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP), that are suspended on the effective dates listed within
this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management
requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the
required floodplain management measures prior to the effective
suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will be withdrawn by
publication in the Federal Register.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of each community's suspension is
the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third column of the following
tables.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to determine whether a particular community was
suspended on the suspension date, contact the appropriate FEMA Regional
Office or the NFIP servicing contractor.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert F. Shea Jr., Division Director,
Program Implementation Division, Mitigation Directorate, 500 C Street,
SW., Room 417, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3619.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return,
communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management
aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding.
Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under
the National Flood Insurance Program, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., unless an
appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures
with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this
document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with
program regulations, 44 CFR part 59 et seq. Accordingly, the
communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third
column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in
the community. However, some of these communities may adopt and submit
the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management
measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual
suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will
continue their eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice
withdrawing the suspension of the communities will be published in the
Federal Register.
In addition, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has identified
the special flood hazard areas in these communities by publishing a
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of the FIRM if one has been
published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct
Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in
connection with a flood) may legally be provided for construction or
acquisition of buildings in the identified special flood hazard area of
communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than
a year, on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's initial flood
insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section
202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a),
as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal
assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date
shown in the last column.
The Acting Associate Director finds that notice and public comment
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary because
communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives a 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
addressed to the Chief Executive Officer that the community will be
suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met
prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications have
been made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
[[Page 28068]]
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR
Part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact
assessment has been prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Acting Associate Director has determined that this rule is
exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022,
prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body
adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective
enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the
statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the communities unless they take
remedial action.
Regulatory Classification
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the
criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not involve any collection of information for
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Executive Order 12612, Federalism
This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications
under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, October 26, 1987, 3 CFR, 1987
Comp., p. 252.
Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12778, October 25, 1991, 56 FR 55195, 3 CFR, 1991
Comp., p. 309.
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
PART 64--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.
Sec. 64.6 [Amended]
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec. 64.6 are
amended as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date certain federal
Community Effective date of Current effective assistance no longer
State/location No. eligibility map date available in special
flood hazard areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region I
Maine: Arundel, town of, York 230192 Apr 21, 1976, Emerg.; June 4, 1996........ June 4, 1996.
County. Apr 1, 1987, Reg.;
June 4, 1996, Susp.
Region IV
Georgia: Dooly County, 130532 Sept. 22, 1995, ......do............ Do.
unincorporated areas. Emerg.; June 4, 1996,
Reg.; June 4, 1996,
Susp.
Region V
Illinois: Kane County, 170896 July 29, 1976, Emerg.; ......do............ Do.
unincorporated areas. Mar. 1, 1982, Reg.;
June 4, 1996, Susp.
Indiana:
LaPorte, city of, LaPorte 180490 Apr. 28, 1983, Emerg.; ......do............ Do.
County. Apr. 1, 1993, Reg.;
June 4, 1996, Susp.
LaPorte County, 180144 Jan. 15, 1976, Emerg.; ......do............ Do.
unincorporated areas. Jan. 1, 1987, Reg.;
June 4, 1996, Susp.
Region VI
New Mexico: Eddy County, 350120 Oct. 22, 1975, Emerg.; ......do............ Do.
unincorporated areas. June 4, 1996, Reg.;
June 4, 1996, Susp.
Region IX
Arizona: Tucson, city of, Pima 040076 Jan. 20, 1975, Emerg.; ......do............ Do.
County. Aug. 2, 1982, Reg.;
June 4, 1996, Susp.
Michigan:
Bangor, charter township 260019 Mar. 30, 1973, Emerg.; June 18, 1996....... June 18, 1996
of, Bay County. July 2, 1979, Reg.;
June 18, 1996, Susp.
Bay City, city of, Bay 260020 Mar. 30, 1973, Emerg.; ......do............ Do.
County. Sept. 1, 1978, Reg.;
June 18, 1996, Susp.
Beaver, township of, Bay 260357 June 25, 1982, Emerg.; ......do............ Do.
County. Feb. 1, 1986, Reg.;
June 18, 1996, Susp.
Essexville, city of, Bay 260021 Mar. 30, 1973, Emerg.; ......do............ Do.
County. Sept. 1, 1978, Reg.;
June 18, 1996, Susp.
Frankenlust, township of, 260022 Mar. 30, 1973, Emerg.; ......do............ Do.
Bay County. Nov. 15, 1979, Reg.;
June 18, 1996, Susp.
Fraser, township of, Bay 260657 Nov. 13, 1981, Emerg.; ......do............ Do.
County. Nov. 13, 1981, Reg.;
June 18, 1996, Susp.
Hampton, township of, Bay 260023 Mar. 30, 1973, Emerg.; ......do............ Do.
County. Aug. 1, 1978, Reg.;
June 18, 1996, Susp.
Kawkawlin, township of, Bay 260658 Jan. 29, 1979, Emerg.; ......do............ Do.
County. Feb. 1, 1979, Reg.;
June 18, 1996, Susp.
Merritt, township of, Bay 260024 Mar. 30, 1973, Emerg.; ......do............ Do.
County. Aug. 15, 1978, Reg.;
June 18, 1996, Susp.
[[Page 28069]]
Monitor, township of, Bay 260358 July 21, 1982, Emerg.; ......do............ Do.
County. Aug. 19, 1985, Reg.;
June 18, 1996, Susp.
Pinconning, city of, Bay 260607 Mar. 17, 1975, Emerg.; ......do............ Do.
County. Aug. 3, 1981, Reg.;
June 18, 1996, Susp.
Pinconning, township of, 260025 Mar. 30, 1973, Emerg.; ......do............ Do.
Bay County. Sept. 1, 1978, Reg.;
June 18, 1996, Susp.
Portsmouth, township of, 260026 Apr. 26, 1973, Emerg.; ......do............ Do.
Bay County. May 1, 1980, Reg.;
June 18, 1996, Susp.
Williams, township of, Bay 260359 June 21, 1979, Emerg.; ......do............ Do.
County. Feb. 1, 1986, Reg.;
June 18, 1996, Susp.
Region VI
Louisiana: St. Mary Parish, 220192 Apr. 6, 1973, Emerg.; ......do............ Do.
unincorporated areas. Sept. 3, 1980, Reg.;
June 18, 1996, Susp.
Oklahoma: Noble County, 400132 May 14, 1990, Emerg.; ......do............ Do.
unincorporated areas. Nov. 18, 1992, Reg.;
June 18, 1996, Susp.
Region VII
Nebraska:
Dakota County, 310429 Aug. 18, 1975, Emerg.; ......do............ Do.
unincorporated areas. Apr. 15, 1982, Reg.;
June 18, 1996, Susp.
Homer, village of, Dakota 310241 Mar. 26, 1975, Emerg.; ......do............ Do.
County. Apr. 3, 1984, Reg.;
June 18, 1996, Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Rein.--Reinstatement; Susp.--Suspension.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, ``Flood
Insurance.'')
Issued: May 30, 1996.
Richard W. Krimm,
Acting Associate Director, Mitigation Directorate.
[FR Doc. 96-13987 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-05-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13983 Indirect Food Additives: Polymers
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28048-28051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13983]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28049]]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
21 CFR Part 177
[Docket No. 94F-0022]
Indirect Food Additives: Polymers
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 petroleum
hydrocarbon resins (cyclopentadiene-type), hydrogenated, as an adjuvant
in the manufacture of polypropylene homopolymer films and copolymer
films of propylene and ethylene containing not less than 94 weight
percent propylene for use in contact with fatty and alcoholic foods.
This action responds to a petition filed by Exxon Chemical Co. The
agency is also correcting a technical error in the current listing for
petroleum hydrocarbon resins.
DATES: Effective June 4, 1996; written objections and requests for a
hearing by July 5, 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: Julius Smith, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-216), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C
St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3091.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal
Register of March 10, 1994 (59 FR 11278), FDA announced that a petition
(FAP 4B4411) had been filed by Exxon Chemical Co., P.O. Box 241, Baton
Rouge, LA 70821. (The address of the petitioner has been changed to
P.O. Box 5200, Baytown, TX 77522-5200.) The petition proposed to amend
the food additive regulations in Sec. 177.1520 Olefin polymers (21 CFR
177.1520) to provide for the safe use of hydrogenated cyclodiene resins
as a component of polypropylene homopolymer or a copolymer of propylene
and ethylene containing not less than 94 weight percent propylene for
use in contact with food. -
In its evaluation of this additive, FDA has determined that the
additive is more accurately described as petroleum hydrocarbon resins
(cyclopentadiene-type), hydrogenated, and is approved for other food
additive uses under this name in Sec. 177.1520. Therefore, the additive
will be identified with this name in the remainder of this document.
The agency has also reviewed the safety of the additive and the
chemical impurities that may be present in the additive resulting from
its manufacturing process. Although the additive itself has not been
shown to cause cancer, it may contain minute amounts of polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's), carcinogenic impurities resulting from
the manufacture of the additive. Residual amounts of reactants,
manufacturing aids, and their constituent impurities, such as
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in this instance, are commonly found
as contaminants in chemical products, including food additives.
I. Determination of Safety
Under the so-called ``general safety clause'' of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 348(c)(3)(A), a food
additive cannot be approved for a particular use unless a fair
evaluation of the evidence establishes that the additive is safe for
that use. FDA's food additive regulations (21 CFR 170.3(i)) define safe
as ``a reasonable certainty in the minds of competent scientists that
the substance is not harmful under the intended conditions of use.''
The anticancer or Delaney clause of the act provides that no food
additive shall be deemed safe if it is found to induce cancer when
ingested by man or animal. Importantly, however, the Delaney clause
applies to the additive itself and not to impurities in the additive.
That is, where an additive itself has not been shown to cause cancer,
but contains a carcinogenic impurity, the additive is properly
evaluated under the general safety clause using risk assessment
procedures to determine whether there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result from the proposed use of the additive. (Scott v. FDA,
728 F.2d 322 (6th Cir. 1984).)
II. Safety of Petitioned Use of the Additive
FDA estimates that the petitioned use of the additive, petroleum
hydrocarbon resins (cyclopentadiene-type), hydrogenated, will result in
levels of exposure to the additive no greater than 0.77 parts per
million (ppm) in the daily diet (Ref. 1).
FDA does not ordinarily consider chronic toxicological studies to
be necessary to determine the safety of an additive whose use will
result in such low exposure levels (Ref. 2), and the agency has not
required such testing here. However, the agency has reviewed the
available toxicological data from acute toxicity and subchronic studies
on the additive. No adverse effects were reported in these studies.
FDA has evaluated the safety of this additive under the general
safety clause, considering all available data and using risk assessment
procedures to estimate the upper-bound limit of lifetime human risk
presented by polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons that may be present as
impurities in the additive. This risk evaluation of polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons has two aspects: (1) Assessment of the worse-case
exposure to the impurity from the proposed use of the additive; and (2)
extrapolation of the risk observed in the animal bioassays to the
conditions of probable exposure to humans.
A. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
FDA has estimated the hypothetical worst-case exposure to
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's) from the petitioned uses of
the additive to be 0.3 nanograms per person per day (ng/person/day),
based on a PAH dietary concentration of 4.9 parts per trillion and a
daily diet of 3 kilograms of food per person per day (Ref. 1).
PAH's occur as a mixture of compounds; the toxicity of these
compounds varies, and some members of the family have been shown to be
carcinogenic in animal studies. For this risk estimate, FDA has made
the ``worst-case'' assumption that the PAH's in the additive consist
entirely of benzo[a]pyrene, the member of the PAH family which current
data indicate to be one of the more potent carcinogens.
Therefore, the agency used data from a carcinogenesis bioassay on
benzo[a]pyrene, conducted by H. Brune et al., to estimate the upper-
bound limit of lifetime human risk from exposure to this chemical
resulting from the proposed use of petroleum hydrocarbon resins
(cyclopentadiene-type), hydrogenated (Ref. 3). The results of the
bioassay on benzo[a]pyrene demonstrated that the material was
carcinogenic for Sprague-Dawley rats under the conditions of the study.
The test material induced treatment-related benign forestomach tumors
or esophageal tumors in male rats.
-Based on a potential exposure of 0.3 ng/person/day, FDA estimates
that the upper-bound limit of lifetime human risk from the potential
exposure to PAH's from the use of the subject additive is 8.8 x
10-9, or less than 1 in 100 million (Ref. 4). Because of numerous
conservative assumptions used in calculating the exposure estimate and
the carcinogenic potency of PAH's in the additive, the actual lifetime
averaged individual exposure to PAH's is expected to be substantially
[[Page 28050]]
less than the potential exposure, and therefore, the upper-bound limit
of human risk would be less. Thus, the agency concludes that there is a
reasonable certainty of no harm from the exposure to PAH's that might
result from the proposed use of the additive.
B. Need for Specifications
The agency has also considered whether a specification is
necessary to control the amount of PAH's present as impurities in the
additive. The agency finds that a specification is not necessary for
the following reasons: (1) Because of the low level at which PAH's may
be expected to remain as impurities following production of the
additive, the agency would not expect these impurities to become
components of food at other than extremely low levels; and (2) the
upper-bound limit of lifetime human risk from exposure to the PAH's,
even under worst-case assumptions, is very low, less than 1 in 100
million.
III. Conclusion on Safety
FDA has evaluated the data in the petition and other relevant
material and concludes that the proposed uses of the additive in
polypropylene homopolymer films and propylene/ethylene copolymer films
in contact with fatty and alcoholic foods are safe. The agency also
concludes that the additive will have its intended technical effect.
The agency is also amending the current listing for the additive to
correct a technical error by changing ``cubic centimeters'' to read
``centipoise.'' Therefore, Sec. 177.1520 should be 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 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 21 CFR
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.
IV. Environmental Impact
In the notice of filing for this petition that published in the
Federal Register of March 10, 1994 (59 FR 11278), FDA gave interested
parties an opportunity to submit comments on the petitioner's
environmental assessment by April 11, 1994, to the Dockets Management
Branch (address above). 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.
V. References
The following references have been placed on display in the
Dockets Management Branch (address above) and may be seen by interested
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
-1. Memorandum from the Chemistry Review Branch, FDA, to the
Indirect Additives Branch, FDA, concerning ``FAP 4B4411 (MATS 754
M2.1): Hydrogenated Cyclodiene Resins--Use in Polypropylene Films in
Contact With Fatty and Alcoholic Food--Exxon Chemical Co.--
Submission of 1/3/94,'' dated June 8, 1994.
-2. Kokoski, C. J., ``Regulatory Food Additive Toxicology,'' in
Chemical Safety Regulation and Compliance, edited by F. Homburger,
J. K. Marquis, and S. Karger, New York, NY, pp. 24 to 33, 1985.
-3. Brune, H., R. P. Deutsch-Wenzel, M. Habs, S. Ivankovis, and
D. Schmahl, ``Investigation of the Tumorigenic Response to
Benzo(a)pyrene in Aqueous Caffeine Solution Applied Orally to
Sprague-Dawley Rats,'' Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical
Oncology, 102:153 to 157, 1981.
-4. Memorandum from the Indirect Additives Branch, FDA, to the
Executive Secretary, Quantitative Risk Assessment Committee, FDA,
concerning, ``Estimation of the Upper Bound Lifetime Risk from
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH's) in Hydrogenated Cyclodiene
Resin, the subject of Food Additive Petition No. 4B4411 (Exxon
Chemical Co.),'' dated May 11, 1995.
VI.- Objections
Any person who will be adversely affected by this regulation may at
any time on or before July 5, 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 177
-Food additives, Food packaging.
-Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and
under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR
part 177 is amended as follows:
--PART 177--INDIRECT FOOD ADDITIVES: POLYMERS
-1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 177 continues to read as
follows:
-Authority: Sec. 201, 402, 409, 721 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 379e.)
2. Section 177.1520 is amended in the table in paragraph (b) for
the item ``Petroleum hydrocarbon resins (cyclopentadiene-type) * * *''
under the heading ``Substance'' by removing the phrase ``cubic
centimeters'' and replacing it with ``centipoise'' and under the
heading ``Limitations'' by revising the entry to read as follows:
Sec. 177.1520 Olefin polymers. -- -- -- --
* * * * *
-(b) * * *
[[Page 28051]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substance Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
* * * -- -- -- --
Petroleum hydrocarbon resins For use only as an adjuvant at
(cyclopentadiene-type) * * *. levels not to exceed 30
percent by weight in blends
with: (1) Polypropylene
complying with paragraph (c),
item 1.1 of this section, or
(2) a copolymer of propylene
and ethylene containing not
less than 94 weight percent
propylene and complying with
paragraph (c), item 3.2 of
this section. The average
thickness of the food-contact
film is not to exceed 0.1
millimeter (0.004 inch). The
finished polymer may be used
in contact with (1) Food types
I, II, IV-B, VI-A, VI-B, VII-
B, and VIII identified in
Table 1 of Sec. 176.170(c) of
this chapter and under
conditions of use C through G
described in Table 2 of Sec.
176.170(c) of this chapter;
and (2) food types III, IV-A,
V, VI-C, VII-A, and IX
identified in Table 1 of Sec.
176.170(c) of this chapter and
under conditions of use D
through G described in Table 2
of Sec. 176.170(c) of this
chapter.
* * * *
* * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Dated: May 29, 1996.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 96-13983 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13982 Indirect Food Additives: Adjuvants, Production Aids, and Sanitizers
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28051-28053]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13982]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
21 CFR Part 178
[Docket No. 93F-0136]
Indirect Food Additives: Adjuvants, Production Aids, and
Sanitizers
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 an aqueous solution
of hydrogen peroxide, acetic acid, peroxyacetic acid, octanoic acid,
peroxyoctanoic acid, sodium 1-octanesulfonate, and 1-hydroxyethylidene-
1,1-diphosphonic acid as a sanitizing solution for use on food
processing equipment and utensils, including food-contact surfaces in
public eating places. This action responds to a petition filed by
Ecolab, Inc.
DATES: Effective June 4, 1996; written objections and requests for a
hearing by July 5, 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: Mitchell A. Cheeseman, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-217), Food and Drug Administration,
200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3083.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal
Register of May 17, 1993 (58 FR 28882), FDA announced that a food
additive petition (FAP 3B4371) had been filed by Ecolab, Inc., 840
Sibley Memorial Hwy., St. Paul, MN 55118. The petition proposed to
amend the food additive regulations in Sec. 178.1010 Sanitizing
solutions (21 CFR 178.1010) to provide for the safe use of an aqueous
solution of hydrogen peroxide, acetic acid, peroxyacetic acid, octanoic
acid, peroxyoctanoic acid, sodium 1-octanesulfonate, and
hydroxyethylene diphosphonic acid as a sanitizing solution for use on
food processing equipment and utensils, including food-contact surfaces
in public eating places.
While the agency used the term hydroxyethylene diphosphonic acid in
the notice of filing, the agency has determined that a more specific
and therefore more appropriate name for the substance is 1-
hydroxyethylidene-1,1-diphosphonic acid. This more specific name will
be used in the remainder of this document and in the regulation.
I. Safety and Functional Effect of Petitioned Use of the Additive
Sanitizing solutions are mixtures of chemicals that function
together to sanitize food-contact surfaces and are regulated as such.
Each listed component in a sanitizing solution has a functional effect;
however, the agency evaluates data on the antimicrobial efficacy of the
entire sanitizing solution. In addition, FDA regulations require that
food-contact surface sanitizing solutions be labeled in accordance with
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(Sec. 178.1010(d)). The subject sanitizing solution is an aqueous
solution of hydrogen peroxide, acetic acid, peroxyacetic acid, octanoic
acid, peroxyoctanoic acid, sodium 1-octanesulfonate, and 1-
hydroxyethylidene-1,1-diphosphonic acid. The functions of these
components and the basis for FDA's determination of the safety of these
components in the subject sanitizing solution are described below.
A. Hydrogen Peroxide-
Hydrogen peroxide functions as an antimicrobial agent in the
subject sanitizing solution. Hydrogen peroxide is permitted as an
ingredient in sanitizing solutions under Sec. 178.1010(b)(30) and
(b)(38), and it is affirmed as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for
use in food with specific limitations under 21 CFR 184.1366. On the
basis of the data submitted in support of the already-regulated uses of
hydrogen peroxide and the data contained in the food additive petition
submitted in support of this sanitizing solution, FDA finds that the
use of hydrogen peroxide in the subject sanitizing solution is safe
(Refs. 1 and 2).
B. Acetic Acid -
Acetic acid functions as an acidifier in the subject sanitizing
solution. Acetic acid is permitted as as ingredient in sanitizing
solutions under Sec. 178.1010(b)(30) and (b)(38), and it is affirmed as
GRAS for use in food under 21 CFR 184.1005. On the basis of the data
submitted in support of the already-regulated uses of acetic acid and
the data contained in the food additive petition submitted in support
of this sanitizing solution, FDA finds that the use of acetic acid in
the subject sanitizing solution is safe (Refs. 1 and 2).
[[Page 28052]]
C. Peroxyacetic Acid-
Peroxyacetic acid (POA) functions as an antimicrobial agent in the
subject sanitizing solution. POA is permitted as an ingredient in
sanitizing solutions under Sec. 178.1010(b)(30) and (b)(38). On the
basis of the data submitted in support of the already-regulated uses of
POA and the data contained in the food additive petition submitted in
support of this sanitizing solution, FDA finds that the use of POA in
the subject sanitizing solution is safe (Refs. 1 and 2).
D. Octanoic Acid-
Octanoic acid functions as a synergist in the subject sanitizing
solution. Octanoic acid is permitted as an ingredient in sanitizing
solutions under Sec. 178.1010(b)(27), (b)(35), (b)(36), and (b)(39),
and it is approved for direct use in food under 21 CFR 172.860
(caprylic acid). On the basis of the data submitted in support of the
already-regulated uses of octanoic acid and the data contained in the
food additive petition submitted in support of this sanitizing
solution, FDA finds that the use of octanoic acid in the subject
sanitizing solution is safe (Refs. 1 and 2).
E. Peroxyoctanoic Acid-
Peroxyoctanoic acid (POOA) is a by-product of hydrogen peroxide and
octanoic acid. Because of the highly reactive nature of POOA, the
actual dietary concentration of POOA is likely to be close to zero.
Based on the likely dietary concentration and information submitted in
the petition, FDA finds that the use of POOA in the subject sanitizing
solution is safe (Refs. 1 and 2).
F. Sodium 1-Octanesulfonate
Sodium 1-octanesulfonate (SOS) functions as a surfactant in the
subject sanitizing solution. SOS is permitted as as ingredient in
sanitizing solutions under Sec. 178.1010(b)(27) and (b)(42). On the
basis of the data submitted in support of the already-regulated uses of
SOS and the data contained in the food additive petition submitted in
support of this sanitizing solution, FDA finds that the use of SOS in
the subject sanitizing solution is safe (Refs. 1 and 2).
G. 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1,1-Diphosphonic Acid-
1-Hydroxyethylidene-1,1-diphosphonic acid functions as a stabilizer
in the subject sanitizing solution. 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1,1-
diphosphonic acid is permitted as as ingredient in sanitizing solutions
under Sec. 178.1010(b)(30). On the basis of the data submitted in
support of this regulated use of 1-hydroxyethylidene-1,1-diphosphonic
acid and the data contained in the food additive petition submitted in
support of this sanitizing solution, FDA finds that the use of 1-
hydroxyethylidene-1,1-diphosphonic acid in the subject sanitizing
solution is safe (Refs. 1 and 2).
H. Conclusion on Safety-
As discussed above, FDA has evaluated data on the antimicrobial
efficacy of the entire sanitizing solution and data in the petition and
other relevant materials on the safety of each of the components of the
sanitizing solution. On the basis of this evaluation, the agency
concludes that these data and materials establish the safety and
efficacy of the additive for use as a sanitizing solution on food-
processing equipment and utensils, including food-contact surfaces in
public eating places, and that the regulations should be amended in
Sec. 178.1010 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 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 21 CFR
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.
II. Environmental Impact
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.
III. References
The following references have been placed on display in the Dockets
Management Branch (address above) and may be seen by interested persons
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
1. Memorandum entitled ``Safety Review of Hydrogen Peroxide,
Acetic Acid, Peroxyacetic Acid, Octanoic Acid, Peroxyoctanoic Acid,
Sodium 1-Octanesulfonate, and Hydroxyethylidene Diphosphonic Acid as
Sanitizer Components,'' dated June 12, 1995.
2. Memorandum entitled ``FAP 3B4371 (MATS #704 M2.1): KX-6094 -
Sanitizer Formulation Consisting of Hydrogen Peroxide, Octanoic
Acid, Peroxyoctanoic Acid, Sodium 1-Octanesulfonate, and 1-
Hydroxyethylidene-1,1-Diphosphonic Acid. Klenzade submission of 3/9/
93,'' dated October 20, 1993.
IV. Filing of Objections
Any person who will be adversely affected by this regulation may at
any time on or before July 5, 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 178
Food additives, Food packaging.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition, 21 CFR part 178 is amended as follows:
PART 178--INDIRECT FOOD ADDITIVES: ADJUVANTS, PRODUCTION AIDS, AND
SANITIZERS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 178 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 402, 409, 721 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 379e).
2. Section 178.1010 is amended by adding new paragraphs (b)(45) and
(c)(39) to read as follows:
[[Page 28053]]
Sec. 178.1010 Sanitizing solutions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(45) An aqueous solution of hydrogen peroxide, acetic acid,
peroxyacetic acid, octanoic acid, peroxyoctanoic acid, sodium 1-
octanesulfonate, and 1-hydroxyethylidene-1,1-diphosphonic acid. In
addition to use on food-processing equipment and utensils, this
solution may be used on food-contact surfaces in public eating places,
subject to the limitations in paragraph (c)(39) of this section.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(39)(i) The solution identified in paragraph (b)(45) of this
section, when used on food processing equipment and utensils, including
dairy and beverage-processing equipment but excluding food-contact
surfaces in public eating places and dairy and beverage containers,
shall provide when ready for use at least 72 parts per million and not
more than 216 parts per million of hydrogen peroxide; at least 46 parts
per million and not more than 138 parts per million of peroxyacetic
acid; at least 40 parts per million and not more than 122 parts per
million of octanoic acid (including peroxyoctanoic acid); at least 281
parts per million and not more than 686 parts per million of acetic
acid; at least 7 parts per million and not more than 34 parts per
million of 1-hydroxyethylidene-1,1-diphosphonic acid; and at least 36
parts per million and not more than 109 parts per million of sodium 1-
octanesulfonate.
(ii) The solution identified in paragraph (b)(45) of this section,
when used on food-contact equipment and utensils in warewashing
machines, including warewashing machines in public eating places, at
temperatures no less than 120 deg.F (49 deg.C) shall provide when
ready for use at least 30 parts per million and not more than 91 parts
per million of hydrogen peroxide; at least 19 parts per million and not
more than 58 parts per million of peroxyacetic acid; at least 17 parts
per million and not more than 52 parts per million of octanoic acid
(including peroxyoctanoic acid); at least 119 parts per million and not
more than 290 parts per million of acetic acid; at least 3 parts per
million and not more than 14 parts per million of 1-hydroxyethylidene-
1,1-diphosphonic acid; and at least 15 parts per million and not more
than 46 parts per million of sodium 1-octanesulfonate.
(iii) The solution identified in paragraph (b)(45) of this section,
when used on dairy or beverage containers, shall provide when ready for
use at least 36 parts per million and not more than 108 parts per
million of hydrogen peroxide; at least 23 parts per million and not
more than 69 parts per million of peroxyacetic acid; at least 20 parts
per million and not more than 61 parts per million of octanoic acid
(including peroxyoctanoic acid); at least 140 parts per million and not
more than 343 parts per million of acetic acid; at least 3 parts per
million and not more than 17 parts per million of 1-hydroxyethylidene-
1,1-diphosphonic acid; and at least 18 parts per million and not more
than 55 parts per million of sodium 1-octanesulfonate.
* * * * *
Dated: May 24, 1996.
Fred R. Shank,
Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 96-13982 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13979 Standing Advisory Committees; Change of Name and Function
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13979]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
21 CFR Part 14
Standing Advisory Committees; Change of Name and Function
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the
standing advisory committees' regulations to change the name and the
function of the Generic Drugs Advisory Committee to the Advisory
Committee for Pharmaceutical Science. This action is being taken to
more accurately describe this committee.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna M. Combs, Committee Management
Office (HFA-306), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857, 301-443-2765.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is announcing that the name of the
Generic Drugs Advisory Committee has been changed. After establishment
of this committee, on January 22, 1990, the agency decided that the
name ``Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science'' would more
accurately describe the committee. The Committee reviews primary
scientific issues dealing with pharmaceutical science including
testing, research, biopharmaceutics, pharmacology, and new chemistry.
The Committee also gives advice on scientific and technical issues
concerning the safety and effectiveness of human generic drug products
for use in the treatment of a broad spectrum of human diseases.
Therefore, the agency feels the name change will more accurately
describe this Committee to the public. In the Federal Register of
February 21, 1996 (61 FR 6644 at 6645), FDA published a notice that
indicated that the name of the Generic Drugs Advisory Committee had
been changed in the charter renewal dated January 22, 1996. In this
document, FDA is hereby formally changing the name and function of the
committee by revising 21 CFR 14.100(c)(16).
Publication of this final rule constitutes a final action on this
change under the Administrative Procedure Act. Under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B) and (d) and under 21 CFR 10.40(d) and (e), the agency
finds good cause to dispense with notice and public procedure, and to
proceed to an immediately effective regulation. Such notice and
procedures are unnecessary and are not in the public interest, because
the final rule is merely a clarifying amendment to existing regulations
and when effective will reflect the current committee charter.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 14
Administrative practice and procedure, Advisory committees, Color
additives, Drugs, Radiation protection.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
14 is amended as follows: -
PART 14--PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE A PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 14 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201-903 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (21 U.S.C. 321-394; 21 U.S.C. 41-50, 141-149, 467f, 679, 821,
1034; secs. 2, 351, 354, 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 201, 262, 263b, 264); secs. 2-12 of the Fair Packaging and
Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. 1451-1461); 5 U.S.C. App. 2; 28 U.S.C. 2112.
2. Section 14.100 is amended by revising the heading for paragraph
(c)(16) and paragraph (c)(16)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 14.100 List of standing advisory committees.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(16) Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science.
* * * * *
(ii) Function: Gives advice on scientific and technical issues
concerning the safety and effectiveness of human generic drug products
for use in the treatment of a broad spectrum of human diseases.
* * * * *
Dated: May 28, 1996.
Michael A. Friedman,
Deputy Commissioner for Operations.
[FR Doc. 96-13979 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13978 Advisory Committee; Change of Name and Function
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28047-28048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13978]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 14
Advisory Committee; Change of Name and Function
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the
standing advisory committees' regulations to change the name and the
function of the Fertility and Maternal Health Drugs Advisory Committee.
This action is being taken to more accurately describe this committee.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna M. Combs, Committee Management
Office (HFA-306), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857, 301-443-2765.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is announcing that the name of the
Fertility and Maternal Health Drugs Advisory Committee has been
changed. After reestablishment of this committee, on March 23, 1978,
the agency decided that the name ``Advisory Committee for Reproductive
Health Drugs'' would more accurately describe the subject areas for
which the committee is responsible. The mandate of the committee has
expanded significantly in recent years to include drugs for menopausal
women and drugs used in the practice of andrology. The change is
consistent with the growing use of this term by specialists in the
field of reproductive health, which includes obstetrics, gynecology,
endocrinology,
[[Page 28048]]
andrology, epidemiology, and related specialties. The committee reviews
and evaluates data on the safety and effectiveness of marketed and
investigational human drugs for use in the practice of obstetrics,
gynecology, and related specialties.
The Fertility and Maternal Health Drugs Advisory Committee's name
was changed in the charter renewal dated March 23, 1996. In this
document, FDA is hereby formally changing the name and the function of
the committee by revising 21 CFR 14.100(c)(9).
Publication of this final rule constitutes a final action on this
change under the Administrative Procedure Act. Under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B) and (d) and 21 CFR 10.40(d) and (e), the agency finds good
cause to dispense with notice and public procedure and to proceed to an
immediately effective regulation. Such notice and procedures are
unnecessary and are not in the public interest, because the final rule
is merely a clarifying amendment to existing regulations and when
effective will reflect the current committee charter. -
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 14
Administrative practice and procedure, Advisory committees, Color
additives, Drugs, Radiation protection.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
14 is amended as follows:
PART 14--PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE A PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 14 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201-903 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (21 U.S.C. 321-394; 21 U.S.C. 41-50, 141-149, 467f, 679, 821,
1034; secs. 2, 351, 354, 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 201, 262, 263b, 264); secs. 2-12 of the Fair Packaging and
Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. 1451-1461); 5 U.S.C. App. 2; 28 U.S.C. 2112.
2. Section 14.100 is amended by revising the heading of paragraph
(c)(9) and paragraph (c)(9)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 14.100 List of standing advisory committees.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(9) Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs.
* * * * *
(ii) Function: Reviews and evaluates data on the safety and
effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drugs for use in
the practice of obstetrics, gynecology, and related specialties.
* * * * *
Dated: May 28, 1996.
Michael A. Friedman,
Deputy Commissioner for Operations.
[FR Doc. 96-13978 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13952 Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Pollock in the Western Regulatory Area
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28069-28070]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13952]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 672
[Docket No. 960129018-6018-01; I.D. 052896E]
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Pollock in the Western
Regulatory Area
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Closure; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues an inseason adjustment closing directed fishing
for pollock by vessels catching pollock for processing by the inshore
component in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA).
This adjustment closes the fishery 12 hours after its scheduled opening
at noon, A.l.t., June 1, 1996, and is necessary to allow the harvest of
the total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in the Western Regulatory
Area.
DATES: Fishery will be closed midnight, A.l.t., June 1, 1996, until 12
noon, A.l.t., July 1, 1996. Comments must be received at the following
address no later than 4:30 p.m., A.l.t., June 14, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to Ronald J. Berg, Chief, Fisheries
Management Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK
99802, Attn: Lori Gravel, or be delivered to the fourth floor of the
Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Sloan, 907-581-2062.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive
economic zone is managed by the NMFS according to the Fishery
Management Plan for Groundfish of the GOA (FMP) prepared by the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act). Fishing by U.S.
vessels is governed by regulations implementing the FMP at 50 CFR parts
620 and 672.
As of May 11, 1996, 5,704 metric tons (mt) of pollock remain in the
second quarterly allowance of the inshore allocation of the Western
Regulatory Area of the GOA pollock TAC. In accordance with
Sec. 672.23(e), directed fishing for pollock in the Western Regulatory
Area of the GOA is scheduled from 12 noon, A.l.t., June 1 until 12
noon, A.l.t., July 1, 1996, or until the TAC is reached, whichever
occurs first.
Section 672.23(b) specifies that the time of all openings and
closures of fishing seasons other than the beginning and end of the
calendar fishing year is 12:00 noon, A.l.t. A fishery opening,
therefore, normally extends for a minimum of 24 hours. Current
information shows the catching capacity of vessels catching pollock for
processing by the inshore component is in excess of 9,600 mt per day.
The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the remaining
portion of the TAC allocated to the inshore component would be exceeded
if a 24-hour fishery were allowed to occur. NMFS intends that the TAC
should not be exceeded, and will not allow a 24-hour directed fishery.
NMFS in accordance with Sec. 672.22(a)(1)(i), is adjusting the
season for pollock by vessels catching pollock for processing by the
inshore component in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA by allowing
the scheduled opening of the directed fishery at 12:00 noon, A.l.t.,
June 1, 1996. The fishery will remain open until 12:00 midnight,
A.l.t., June 1 at which time it will be closed. This action has the
effect of opening the fishery for 12 hours. NMFS is taking this action
to allow a controlled fishery to occur, thereby preventing either the
[[Page 28070]]
underharvest or overharvest of the pollock TAC allocated to the inshore
component as authorized by Sec. 672.22(a)(2)(iii). In accordance with
672.22(a)(4), NMFS has determined that closing the season at midnight,
A.l.t., June 1 after a 12-hour opening is the least restrictive
management adjustment to achieve the second quarterly allowance of the
pollock TAC allocated to the inshore component and will allow other
fisheries to continue in noncritical areas and time periods.
Classification
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds for good
cause that providing prior notice and public comment or delaying the
effective date of this action is impracticable and contrary to the
public interest. Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow
this fishery, and the second quarterly allowance of the pollock TAC in
the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA would not be harvested in
accordance with the regulatory schedule, resulting in a seasonal loss
of more than 1.0 million dollars. Under Sec. 672.22(c)(2), interested
persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the
above address until June 14, 1996.
This action is taken under Sec. 672.22 and is exempt from review
under E.O. 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: May 29, 1996.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-13952 Filed 5-30-96; 4:21 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13951 Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Pollock in Statistical Area 630
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28070]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13951]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 672
[Docket No. 960129018-6018-01; I.D. 052896D]
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Pollock in Statistical Area 630
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Closure; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues an inseason adjustment closing directed fishing
for pollock by vessels catching pollock for processing by the inshore
component in Statistical Area 630 of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This
adjustment closes the fishery 12 hours after its scheduled opening at
noon, A.l.t. June 1, 1996, and is necessary to allow the harvest of the
total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in Statistical Area 630.
DATES: Fishery will be closed midnight, A.l.t., June 1, 1996, until 12
noon, A.l.t., July 1, 1996. Comments must be received at the following
address no later than 4:30 p.m., A.l.t., June 14, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to Ronald J. Berg, Chief, Fisheries
Management Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK
99802, Attn: Lori Gravel, or be delivered to the fourth floor of the
Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Sloan, 907-581-2062.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive
economic zone is managed by the NMFS according to the Fishery
Management Plan for Groundfish of the GOA (FMP) prepared by the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act). Fishing by U.S.
vessels is governed by regulations implementing the FMP at 50 CFR parts
620 and 672.
As of May 11, 1996, 2,200 metric tons of pollock remain in the
second quarterly allowance of the inshore allocation of Statistical
Area 630 of the GOA pollock TAC. In accordance with Sec. 672.23 (e),
directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA is
scheduled from 12 noon, A.l.t., June 1 until 12 noon, A.l.t., July 1,
1996, or until the TAC is reached, whichever occurs first.
Section 672.23(b) specifies that the time of all openings and
closures of fishing seasons other than the beginning and end of the
calendar fishing year is 12:00 noon, A.l.t. A fishery opening,
therefore, normally extends for a minimum of 24 hours. Current
information shows the catching capacity of vessels catching pollock for
processing by the inshore component is in excess of 4,000 mt per day.
The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the remaining
portion of the TAC allocated to the inshore component would be exceeded
if a 24-hour fishery were allowed to occur. NMFS intends that the TAC
should not be exceeded, and will not allow a 24-hour directed fishery.
NMFS in accordance with Sec. 672.22(a)(1)(i), is adjusting the
season for pollock by vessels catching pollock for processing by the
inshore component in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA by allowing the
scheduled opening of the directed fishery at 12:00 noon, A.l.t., June
1, 1996. The fishery will remain open until 12:00 midnight, A.l.t.,
June 1 at which time it will be closed. This action has the effect of
opening the fishery for 12 hours. NMFS is taking this action to allow a
controlled fishery to occur, thereby preventing either the underharvest
or overharvest of the pollock TAC allocated to the inshore component as
authorized by Sec. 672.22(a)(2)(iii). In accordance with 672.22(a)(4),
NMFS has determined that closing the season at midnight, A.l.t., June 1
after a 12-hour opening is the least restrictive management adjustment
to achieve the second quarterly allowance of the pollock TAC allocated
to the inshore component and will allow other fisheries to continue in
noncritical areas and time periods.
Classification
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds for good
cause that providing prior notice and public comment or delaying the
effective date of this action is impracticable and contrary to the
public interest. Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow
this fishery, and the second quarterly allowance of the pollock TAC in
Statistical Area 630 of the GOA would not be harvested in accordance
with the regulatory schedule, resulting in a seasonal loss of more than
450 thousand dollars. Under Sec. 672.22(c)(2), interested persons are
invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address
until June 14, 1996.
This action is taken under Sec. 672.22 and is exempt from review
under E.O. 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: May 29, 1996.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-13951 Filed 5-30-96; 4:21 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13950 Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Pollock in Statistical Area 620
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28070-28071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13950]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 672
[Docket No. 960129018-6018-01; I.D. 052896C]
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Pollock in Statistical Area 620
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Closure; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues an inseason adjustment closing directed fishing
for pollock by vessels catching pollock for processing by the inshore
component in
[[Page 28071]]
Statistical Area 620 of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This adjustment
closes the fishery 12 hours after its scheduled opening at noon, A.l.t.
June 1, 1996, and is necessary to allow the harvest of the total
allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in Statistical Area 620.
DATES: Fishery will be closed midnight, A.l.t., June 1, 1996, until 12
noon, A.l.t., July 1, 1996. Comments must be received at the following
address no later than 4:30 p.m., A.l.t., June 14, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to Ronald J. Berg, Chief, Fisheries
Management Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK
99802, Attn: Lori Gravel, or be delivered to the fourth floor of the
Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Sloan, 907-581-2062.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive
economic zone is managed by the NMFS according to the Fishery
Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by
the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act).
Fishing by U.S. vessels is governed by regulations implementing the FMP
at 50 CFR parts 620 and 672.
As of May 11, 1996, 2,891 metric tons (mt) of pollock remain in the
second quarterly allowance of the inshore allocation of Statistical
Area 620 of the GOA pollock TAC. In accordance with Sec. 672.23(e),
directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA is
scheduled from 12 noon, A.l.t., June 1 until 12 noon, A.l.t., July 1,
1996, or until the TAC is reached, whichever occurs first.
Section 672.23(b) specifies that the time of all openings and
closures of fishing seasons other than the beginning and end of the
calendar fishing year is 12:00 noon, A.l.t. A fishery opening,
therefore, normally extends for a minimum of 24 hours. Current
information shows the catching capacity of vessels catching pollock for
processing by the inshore component is in excess of 4,000 mt per day.
The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the remaining
portion of the TAC allocated to the inshore component would be exceeded
if a 24-hour fishery were allowed to occur. NMFS intends that the TAC
should not be exceeded, and will not allow a 24-hour directed fishery.
NMFS in accordance with Sec. 672.22(a)(1)(i), is adjusting the
season for pollock by vessels catching pollock for processing by the
inshore component in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA by allowing the
scheduled opening of the directed fishery at 12:00 noon, A.l.t., June
1, 1996. The fishery will remain open until 12:00 midnight, A.l.t.,
June 1 at which time it will be closed. This action has the effect of
opening the fishery for 12 hours. NMFS is taking this action to allow a
controlled fishery to occur, thereby preventing either the underharvest
or overharvest of the pollock TAC allocated to the inshore component as
authorized by Sec. 672.22(a)(2)(iii). In accordance with 672.22(a)(4),
NMFS has determined that closing the season at midnight, A.l.t., June 1
after a 12-hour opening is the least restrictive management adjustment
to achieve the second quarterly allowance of the pollock TAC allocated
to the inshore component and will allow other fisheries to continue in
noncritical areas and time periods.
Classification
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds for good
cause that providing prior notice and public comment or delaying the
effective date of this action is impracticable and contrary to the
public interest. Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow
this fishery, and the second quarterly allowance of the pollock TAC in
Statistical Area 620 of the GOA would not be harvested in accordance
with the regulatory schedule, resulting in a seasonal loss of more than
500 thousand dollars. Under Sec. 672.22(c)(2), interested persons are
invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address
until June 14, 1996.
This action is taken under Sec. 672.22 and is exempt from review
under E.O. 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: May 29, 1996.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Development,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-13950 Filed 5-30-96; 4:21 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13949 Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Sharpchin/Northern Rockfish Species Category in the Aleutian Islands Subarea
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13949]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 675
[Docket No. 960129019-6019-01; I.D. 052996B]
Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area;
Sharpchin/Northern Rockfish Species Category in the Aleutian Islands
Subarea
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Closure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is closing the directed fishery for the sharpchin/
northern rockfish species category in the Aleutian Islands subarea (AI)
of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This
action is necessary to prevent exceeding the sharpchin/northern
rockfish species category total allowable catch (TAC) in the AI.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), May 30, 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
(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 sharpchin/ northern
rockfish species category initial TAC for the AI was established by the
Final 1996 Harvest Specifications of Groundfish (61 FR 4311, February
5, 1996) as 4,445 metric tons (mt).
The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Director), has
determined, in accordance with Sec. 675.20(a)(8), that the sharpchin/
northern rockfish species category initial TAC in the AI soon will be
reached. Therefore, the Regional Director has established a directed
fishing allowance of 4,145 mt, with consideration that 300 mt will be
taken as incidental catch in directed fishing for other species in the
AI. The Regional Director has determined that the directed fishing
allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed
fishing for the sharpchin/northern rockfish species category in the AI.
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 50 CFR 675.20 and is exempt from review
under E.O. 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: May 30, 1996.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-13949 Filed 5-30-96; 4:21 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13946 Airworthiness Standards; Continued Rotation and Rotor Locking Tests, and Vibration and Vibration Tests
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28430-28433]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13946]
[[Page 28429]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Part 33
Airworthiness Standards; Continued Rotation and Rotor Locking Tests,
and Vibration and Vibration Tests; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 28430]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 33
[Docket No. 28107; Amendment No. 33-17]
RIN 2120-AF57
Airworthiness Standards; Continued Rotation and Rotor Locking
Tests, and Vibration and Vibration Tests
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment revises the Federal Aviation Administration's
(FAA's) continued rotation and vibration certification standards for
the issuance of original and amended type certificates for aircraft
engines. This amendment is the result of an effort to harmonize the
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR's) with European requirements being
drafted by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA). This amendment will
provide nearly uniform requirements that will simplify international
airworthiness approval, while maintaining a level of safety equivalent
to that established by the current standards.
DATES: Effective July 5, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marc Bouthillier, or Thomas Boudreau, Engine and Propeller Standards
Staff, ANE-110, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, FAA, New England Region, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone (617) 238-7111;
fax (617) 238-7199.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Part 33 of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR part
33) prescribes certification standards for the issuance of original and
amended type certificates for aircraft engines. Part E of the Joint
Aviation Requirements (JAR-E) prescribes the corresponding
certification standards of the JAA. While part 33 and JAR-E are
similar, they differ in several respects. Non-uniform standards impose
a regulatory burden on applicants seeking certification under both sets
of standards in the form of additional costs and delays in the time
required for certification.
As part of its commitment to promote harmonization of part 33 and
JAR-E, the FAA, with the cooperation of the JAA, established the part
33/JAR-E Authorities Engine Group to compare part 33 and JAR-E. This
group included regulatory representatives from France, Canada, Germany,
the United Kingdom, and the United States. The basis for the comparison
was part 33, as amended through Amendment 11, and JAR-E, as amended
through Change 7. As its initial effort, the study group focused on gas
turbine engines and concentrated on JAR-E items that appeared to be
more stringent than part 33. The continued rotation and rotor locking
test requirements, and vibration and vibration test requirements, were
identified as differences sufficiently significant to cause the JAA to
apply additional conditions to U.S. manufacturers seeking JAA
certification. The FAA requested the ARAC to further evaluate these
initiatives and ARAC assigned the task to the Propulsion Harmonization
Working Group. The task resulted in an ARAC recommendation to the FAA
to proceed with rulemaking. The FAA issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM), No. 95-3, published in the Federal Register (60 FR
12360, dated March 6, 1995). The proposal reflected the ARAC
recommendations.
Discussion of Comments
All interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to
participate in this rulemaking, and due consideration has been given to
all comments received. The commenters represent domestic industry and
foreign airworthiness authorities. Six commenters provided the FAA with
comments to NPRM 95-3. Two of these six commenters expressed no
objection to the proposals. The comments are grouped according to the
applicable revised and new sections of part 33.
Section 33.74 Continued Rotation
Two commenters state that the term ``windmilling'' should be
changed to ``continued rotation,'' to be consistent with the existing
wording of part 23 and part 25, and to encompass mechanical as well as
aerodynamic effects.
The FAA agrees. The FAA has changed the term ``windmilling'' to
``continued rotation,'' wherever it appears.
One commenter states that the wording of proposed 33.74 in the NPRM
is awkward, and should be revised for clarity.
The FAA agrees. The FAA has rewritten this section to more clearly
state the requirement. The phrase ``any of the engine main rotating
systems'' replaces ``engine'', and the revised section now specifies
that the standard does not apply when rotor locking systems are in
place. In addition the phrase ``and in the flight conditions expected
to occur'' replaces the phrase ``likely to occur''. The FAA has also
made additional changes to revised Sec. 33.74 as noted in response to
other comments.
One commenter states that the term ``typical installation'' should
be deleted, because the rule applies to all installations.
The FAA agrees. This term has been deleted from this section.
One commenter states that the term ``for any reason'' be either
deleted or clarified, because this wording will require compliance for
the case of a failed rotor locking devices, if installed.
The FAA agrees. The rule does not intend to consider a failed rotor
locking device. The FAA has, therefore, added a clarifying statement to
this effect. However, the term ``for any reason'' has been retained to
cover all other reasons for an engine shutdown.
One commenter states that the term ``flight conditions expected to
occur'' be included in the text of the rule.
The FAA agrees. The FAA has included this term in the rule.
Two commenters state that the term ``hazard to the aircraft''
should be deleted, and replaced by more definitive criteria.
The FAA agrees. The FAA has replaced this term with a more
definitive criteria by referencing Sec. 33.75. That criteria can be
evaluated at the engine level, without the need for an aircraft
installation assessment.
One commenter states that the proposed rule should also require
determination of aircraft/engine interface loads associated with
continued rotation with rotor unbalance, and submittal of these for
engine certification.
The FAA disagrees. The FAA considers this comment to be beyond the
scope of this rulemaking, because the proposal addresses only the
continued rotation characteristics of the engine; it did not address
aircraft structural requirements for various engine load conditions.
Also, the commenter does not specify any criteria for evaluating
aircraft/engine interface loads, which can only be evaluated when
considering an entire airplane.
Section 33.63 Vibration
One commenter expressed concern with the apparent inference to
structural assessments of the aircraft due to engine dynamic loads. The
commenter suggests that this part of the proposal not be issued and
that the appropriate ARAC Structures and Propulsion working groups be
tasked to work the issue.
The FAA disagrees. The FAA considers this comment is beyond the
scope of this rulemaking. The revision
[[Page 28431]]
to Sec. 33.63 clarifies, but does not alter, the original intent of a
requirement that was promulgated as a Civil Air Regulation on June 15,
1956. The practical application of this requirement is to demonstrate
those peak vibratory stresses of engine components do not exceed the
material endurance limit for all normal engine operation (i.e., does
not consider engine failure conditions that would be evident to the
crew). The requirement of parts 23.939, 25.939, 27.939, and 29.939
further ensures that the installation of the engine to the aircraft
will not result in excessive vibratory stresses of engine components
for all normal engine operation. Additionally, the combined
requirements of paragraphs 33.63 and 33.29(b) require that an
indication of excessive vibration (rotor unbalance) be provided to the
installer. These indications are provided to the crew to alert them of
conditions beyond what is considered normal engine operation so that
immediate corrective actions can be taken. It has never been the intent
of this requirement nor is it the intent of the revised requirement to
establish the abnormal engine environment for designing aircraft
structures. In a separate and unrelated task, the FAA has chartered the
ARAC Loads and Dynamic Harmonization Working Group to assess whether
the current aircraft structural requirements adequately address the
engine dynamic loads resulting from turbine engine failures.
Section 33.83 Vibration test
Section 33.83(a)
One commenter states that additional clarification be provided on
the intended means of measuring vibration stresses. The commenter
states that the requirements infer direct measurements of vibratory
stresses can only be measured using strain gauges.
The FAA disagrees. Typically, vibration stresses are measured
directly. However, in certain instances, indirect measurements of blade
deflections can supplement direct measurements of vibratory stresses.
Further clarification of the intended measurements is not needed as the
regulation retains language that is understood by engine manufacturers
and is basically unchanged since its inception as a Civil Air
Regulation on June 15, 1956.
Section 33.83(b)
One commenter suggested editorial changes to emphasize that the
vibration surveys cover the ranges of physical and corrected rotation
speeds.
The FAA agrees. The paragraph has been revised to better define the
intent of the harmonized vibration requirements.
One commenter states the phrase ``throughout the declared flight
envelope'' was used redundantly in proposed paragraphs 33.83(a) and
33.83(b).
The FAA disagrees. Revised paragraph 33.83(a) contains general
vibration test requirements while revised paragraph 33.83(b) contains
more specific test requirements. The defining term ``throughout the
declared flight envelope'' is needed in both paragraphs.
One commenter states that alternative wording is needed to the
speed extension requirements of proposed paragraph 33.83(b). The
commenter further states that the surveys should be extended
sufficiently to reveal the maximum stress value but limiting the
rotational speed extension to no more than an additional 2 percentage
points.
The FAA agrees. The FAA will incorporate the wording recommended by
the commenter to better define the intent of the speed extension
requirement.
Section 33.83(c)
One commenter states that the proposal eliminates those
requirements specific to accessory drives and mounting attachments, and
also asks whether the FAA is still concerned about accessory drives and
mounting attachments.
The FAA disagrees. The FAA still has concerns on the integration
requirements of accessory drives and mounting attachments and specific
reference to accessory loading is retained in revised paragraph
33.83(c). New paragraph 33.83(f) provides for a more complete and
thorough integration of the engine to the aircraft, including accessory
drives and mounting attachments.
One commenter states that an additional subparagraph to paragraph
33.83(c) is needed to emphasize the requirement to evaluate factors
that might induce or influence flutter vibration.
The FAA agrees. Flutter vibration was included in the discussion of
proposed 33.83(b) in the NPRM. Revised 33.83(c) contains a new
paragraph (c)(2) that defines the intent of the harmonized vibration
requirements.
Section 33.83(d)
Two commenters state that proposed paragraphs 33.83 (d) and (e)
need clarification to distinguish between the standard that applies to
normal operation from that applicable to likely fault conditions. One
suggests that the order of proposed paragraphs 33.83 (d) and (e) needs
to be reversed.
The FAA agrees. The FAA has reversed order of new paragraphs 33.83
(d) and (e) and has added additional words to clarify which criterion
applies in each condition.
One commenter suggested editorial changes to clarify that vibratory
stresses are combined with steady stresses when comparing to the
material's endurance limit.
The FAA agrees. The paragraph has been revised to better define the
intent of the harmonized vibration requirements. The phrase ``when
combined with the appropriate steady state stresses'' has been added to
new paragraph 33.83(d).
One commenter states that proposed paragraph 33.83(e) appears to be
a design not a performance requirement, and therefore, infers that this
proposed paragraph is inappropriately included in the vibration test
section.
The FAA disagrees. New paragraph 33.83(d) is the primary criterion
for evaluating the results of tests and analyses conducted in
accordance with revised paragraphs 33.83 (a), (b), and (c).
One commenter states that the standard requiring vibration stresses
to be less than the endurance limits of the materials concerned should
be relaxed to assess the vibration stresses against the endurance
limits of the materials concerned.
The FAA does not agree. The commenter's suggestion allows for
acceptance of vibration stresses greater than the endurance limits
without any definitive limitation. All engines on an aircraft are
subject to the same environmental and operating conditions. The
standard requiring vibratory stresses of less than the endurance limit
is necessary, therefore, to minimize the likelihood of having multiple
engines on the same aircraft fail for the same root cause. The FAA
recognizes that there may be instances where a particular vibration
failure mode does not result in engine anomalies (such as, power loss,
high vibrations sensed by the flight crew, limit exceeded) that could
cascade into a hazardous condition. The FAA has determined that such
instances are rare. The FAA can evaluate the merit of these instances
on a case by case basis.
Section 33.83(e)
One commenter suggested editorial changes to clarify the assessment
of fault conditions.
The FAA agrees. The paragraph has been revised to better define the
intent of the harmonized vibration requirements. The phrase ``of likely
[[Page 28432]]
fault conditions'' has been replaced by the phrase ``of excitation
forces caused by fault conditions'', and the phrase ``on vibration
characteristics'' has been moved to the beginning of the paragraph.
One commenter states that the requirement to assess vibrations
should not apply throughout the declared flight envelope for failure
conditions. The commenter further states that it is excessive to
require assessments throughout the declared flight envelope for failure
conditions.
The FAA does not agree. The FAA does not intend that the
requirements apply to all failure conditions. No assessments are
required, for example, where the condition will quickly result in an
engine shutdown or result in immediate symptoms that will necessitate
flight crew actions. The FAA does intend, however, that assessments be
made of typical fault conditions (such as, turbine nozzle guide vane
burn-throughs, fuel nozzle blockage, minor foreign object damage) that
may not be immediately detectable by the flight crew and that could
cascade into a hazardous condition. Requiring assessments of typical
fault conditions throughout the declared flight envelope is not
considered excessive. The assessment criterion for fault conditions is
to show only that no hazardous condition is created, where the stricter
assessment criterion for normal operation requires that assessed
vibratory stresses do not exceed the material's endurance limit.
Section 33.83(f)
One commenter suggested changing ``installation documents'' to read
``installation instructions'' to be consistent with Sec. 33.5.
The FAA agrees. The noted editorial change has been incorporated.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act on 1990 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), there are no requirements for information collection
associated with this rule.
Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, and
Trade Impact Assessment
Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies
to analyze the economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities.
Third, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess
the effect of regulatory changes on international trade. In conducting
these analyses, the FAA has determined that this rule: (1) will
generate benefits outweighing its costs; (2) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order; (3) is not
``significant'' as defined by DOT's policies and procedures; (4) will
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities; and (5) will not constitute a barrier to international trade.
These analyses, available in the docket, are summarized below.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Of the several amendments, only one might result in additional
cost. The FAA has identified the requirements in revised Sec. 33.83(b)
as the only amendment that could require minor additional engine
testing and engineering analysis, resulting in minor additional
compliance costs. The revised engine continued rotation requirements of
new Sec. 33.74 and the amendments to Sec. 33.92(a) could potentially
result in cost savings to engine and transport airplane manufacturers.
The primary benefits of the rule will be harmonization of
airworthiness standards with the European Joint Aviation Requirements
and clarification of existing standards. The resulting increased
uniformity of standards will simplify airworthiness approval for import
and export purposes and will avoid some of the costs that can result
when manufacturers seek type certification under both sets of
standards. While not readily quantifiable, the cost economies of
harmonization will far exceed the minor incremental cost of the rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 was enacted by
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily or
disproportionately burdened by Federal Regulations. The RFA requires a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if a proposed rule will have a
significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a
substantial number of small entities. Based on FAA Order 2100.14A
(Regulatory Flexibility Criteria and Guidance), which outlines
procedures and criteria for implementing the RFA, the FAA has
determined that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The rule will not constitute a barrier to international trade,
including the export of U.S. aircraft engines to foreign countries and
the import of foreign aircraft engines into the U.S. Instead, the
revised standards will harmonize with existing and proposed standards
of foreign aviation authorities, thereby lessening restraints on trade.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1990 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et Seq.), there are no requirements for information collection
associated with this rule.
International Compatibility
The FAA has reviewed corresponding International Civil Aviation
Organization international standards and recommended practices and
Joint Aviation Authorities requirements and has identified no
difference in these amendments and the foreign regulations.
Federalism Implications
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
regulation will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the FAA has determined that this
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
(3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative,
on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
RFA; and (4) will not substantially impact on international trade. A
final regulatory evaluation of the regulation, including a final
Regulatory Flexibility Determination and International Trade Impact
Assessment, has been placed in the docket. A copy may be obtained by
contacting the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
[[Page 28433]]
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends 14
CFR part 33 as follows.
PART 33--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES
1. The authority citation for part 33 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
2. Section 33.63 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 33.63 Vibration.
Each engine must be designed and constructed to function throughout
its declared flight envelope and operating range of rotational speeds
and power/thrust, without inducing excessive stress in any engine part
because of vibration and without imparting excessive vibration forces
to the aircraft structure.
3. A new section 33.74 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 33.74 Continued rotation.
If any of the engine main rotating systems will continue to rotate
after the engine is shutdown for any reason while in flight, and where
means to prevent that continued rotation are not provided; then any
continued rotation during the maximum period of flight, and in the
flight conditions expected to occur with that engine inoperative, must
not result in any condition described in Sec. 33.75 (a) through (c).
4. Section 33.83 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 33.83 Vibration test.
(a) Each engine must undergo vibration surveys to establish that
the vibration characteristics of those components that may be subject
to mechanically or aerodynamically induced vibratory excitations are
acceptable throughout the declared flight envelope. The engine surveys
shall be based upon an appropriate combination of experience, analysis,
and component test and shall address, as a minimum, blades, vanes,
rotor discs, spacers, and rotor shafts.
(b) The surveys shall cover the ranges of power or thrust, and both
the physical and corrected rotational speeds for each rotor system,
corresponding to operations throughout the range of ambient conditions
in the declared flight envelope, from the minimum rotational speed up
to 103 percent of the maximum physical and corrected rotational speed
permitted for rating periods of two minutes or longer, and up to 100
percent of all other permitted physical and corrected rotational
speeds, including those that are overspeeds. If there is any indication
of a stress peak arising at the highest of those required physical or
corrected rotational speeds, the surveys shall be extended sufficiently
to reveal the maximum stress values present, except that the extension
need not cover more than a further 2 percentage points increase beyond
those speeds.
(c) Evaluations shall be made of the following:
(1) The effects on vibration characteristics of operating with
scheduled changes (including tolerances) to variable vane angles,
compressor bleeds, accessory loading, the most adverse inlet air flow
distortion pattern declared by the manufacturer, and the most adverse
conditions in the exhaust duct(s); and
(2) The aerodynamic and aeromechanical factors which might induce
or influence flutter in those systems susceptible to that form of
vibration.
(d) Except as provided by paragraph (e) of this section, the
vibration stresses associated with the vibration characteristics
determined under this section, when combined with the appropriate
steady stresses, must be less than the endurance limits of the
materials concerned, after making due allowances for operating
conditions for the permitted variations in properties of the materials.
The suitability of these stress margins must be justified for each part
evaluated. If it is determined that certain operating conditions, or
ranges, need to be limited, operating and installation limitations
shall be established.
(e) The effects on vibration characteristics of excitation forces
caused by fault conditions (such as, but not limited to, out-of
balance, local blockage or enlargement of stator vane passages, fuel
nozzle blockage, incorrectly schedule compressor variables, etc.) shall
be evaluated by test or analysis, or by reference to previous
experience and shall be shown not to create a hazardous condition.
(f) Compliance with this section shall be substantiated for each
specific installation configuration that can affect the vibration
characteristics of the engine. If these vibration effects cannot be
fully investigated during engine certification, the methods by which
they can be evaluated and methods by which compliance can be shown
shall be substantiated and defined in the installation instructions
required by Sec. 33.5.
5. Section 33.92 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 33.92 Rotor locking tests.
If continued rotation is prevented by a means to lock the rotor(s),
the engine must be subjected to a test that includes 25 operations of
this means under the following conditions:
(a) The engine must be shut down from rated maximum continuous
thrust or power; and
(b) The means for stopping and locking the rotor(s) must be
operated as specified in the engine operating instructions while being
subjected to the maximum torque that could result from continued flight
in this condition; and
(c) Following rotor locking, the rotor(s) must be held stationary
under these conditions for five minutes for each of the 25 operations.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 29, 1996.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-13946 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13944 Establishment of Class E Airspace; Galliano, LA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28035-28036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13944]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ASW-23]
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Galliano, LA
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above ground level (AGL) at Galliano, LA. The development of a
Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedure
(SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 18 at South La Fourche Airport has made this
action necessary. This action is intended to provide adequate Class E
airspace to contain instrument flight rule (IFR) operations for
aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 18 at South La Fourche Airport,
Galliano, LA.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, August 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald J. Day, Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest
Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530,
telephone 817-222-5593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On January 24, 1996, a proposal to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Class E airspace at
Galliano, LA, was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 1872). A GPS
SIAP to RWY 18 developed for South La Fourche Airport, Galliano, LA,
requires the establishment of Class E airspace at this airport. The
proposal was to establish controlled airspace extending upward from 700
feet AGL to contain IFR operations in controlled airspace during
portions of the terminal operation and while transitioning between the
enroute and terminal environments.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments to the proposal were received. The rule is adopted as
proposed.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more AGL are published in Paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) establishes the Class E airspace located at Galliano, LA,
to provide controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL for
aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 18 at South La Fourche Airport,
Galliano, LA.
[[Page 28036]]
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations that need frequent and
routine amendments 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).
Adoption of the 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. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005: Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASW LA E5 Galliano, LA [New]
Galliano, South La Fourche Airport, LA
(lat. 29 deg.26'41'' N., long. 090 deg.15'40'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of South La Fourche Airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 15, 1996.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-13944 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13943 Revision of Class E Airspace; Mena, AR
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28033-28034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13943]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ASW-24]
Revision of Class E Airspace; Mena, AR
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action revises the Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above ground level (AGL) at Mena, AR. The development of a
Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedure
(SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 17 at Mena Intermountain Municipal Airport has
made this action necessary. This action is intended to provide adequate
Class E airspace to contain instrument flight rule (IFR) operations for
aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 17 at Mena Intermountain
Municipal Airport, Mena, AR.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 u.t.c., August 15 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chuck Frankenfield, Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest
Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530,
telephone 817-222-5591.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On January 24, 1996, a proposal to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to revise the Class E airspace at
Mena, AR, was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 1871). A GPS
SIAP to RWY 17 developed for Mena Intermountain Municipal Airport,
Mena, AR, requires the revision of the Class E airspace at this
airport. The proposal was to revise the controlled airspace extending
upward from 700 feet AGL to contain IFR operations in controlled
airspace during portions of the terminal operation and while
transitioning between the enroute and terminal environments.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments to the proposal were received. The rule is adopted as
proposed.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more AGL are published in Paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) amends the Class E airspace located at Mena Intermountain
Municipal Airport, Mena, AR, to provide controlled airspace extending
upward from 700 feet AGL for aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 17.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations that need frequent and
routine amendments 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).
Adoption of the 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. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005: Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASW AR E5 Mena, AR [Revised]
Mena Intermountain Municipal Airport, AR
(Lat. 34 deg.32'55'' N., long. 94 deg.12'29'' W.)
Mena RBN
[[Page 28034]]
(Lat. 34 deg.32'55'' N., long. 94 deg.12'36'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.9-mile radius of Mena Intermountain Municipal Airport and
within 8 miles south and 4 miles north of the 086 deg. radial from
the Mena RBN extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 16 miles east of
the RBN and within 2 miles each side of the 001 deg. bearing from
the airport extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 12.6 miles north
of the airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 15, 1996.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-13943 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13941 Revision of Class E Airspace; Dumas, TX
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13941]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ASW-30]
Revision of Class E Airspace; Dumas, TX
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action revises the Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above ground level (AGL) at Dumas, TX. The development of a
Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedure
(SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 19 at Moore County Airport has made this action
necessary. This action is intended to provide adequate Class E airspace
to contain instrument flight rule (IFR) operations for aircraft
executing the GP SIAP to RWY 19 at Moore County Airport, Dumas, TX.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 u.t.c., August 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald J. Day, Operations Branch, Air
Traffic Division, Southwest Region, Federal Aviation Administration,
Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530, telephone 817-222-5593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On January 31, 1996, a proposal to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulation (14 CFR part 71) to revise the Class E airspace at
Dumas, TX, was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 3357). A GPS
SIAP to RWY 19 developed for Moore County Airport, Dumas, TX, requires
the revision of Class E airspace at this airport. The proposal was to
revise controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL to
contain IFR operations in controlled airspace during portions of the
terminal operation and while transitioning between the enroute and
terminal environments.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments to the proposal were received. The rule is adopted as
proposed.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more AGL are published in Paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) revises the Class E airspace located at Dumas, TX, to
provide controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL for
aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 19 at Moore County Airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations that need frequent and
routine amendments 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).
Adoption of the 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. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9c, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005: Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASW TX E5 Dumas, TX [Revised]
Dumas, Moore County Airport, TX
(Lat. 35 deg.51'28'' N., long. 102 deg.00'48'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.8-mile radius of Moore County Airport, and within 1.9
miles each side of the 023 deg. bearing from the airport extending
from the 6.8-mile radius to 8.9 miles northeast of the airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 15, 1996.
Albert. L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-13941 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13940 Revision of Class E Airspace; Brownfield, TX
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28034-28035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13940]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ASW-29]
Revision of Class E Airspace; Brownfield, TX
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action revises the Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above ground level (AGL) at Brownfield, TX. The development of
a Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach
procedure (SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 02 at Terry County Airport has made
this action necessary. This action is intended to provide adequate
Class E airspace to contain instrument flight rule (IFR) operations for
aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 02 at Terry County Airport,
Brownfield, TX.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 u.t.c., August 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald J. Day, Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest
Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530,
telephone 817-222-5593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On January 31, 1996, a proposal to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation
[[Page 28035]]
Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to revise the Class E airspace at
Brownfield, TX, was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 3356). A
GPS SIAP to RWY 02 developed for Terry County Airport, Brownfield, TX,
requires the revision of the Class E airspace at this airport. The
proposal was to revise the controlled airspace extending upward from
700 feet AGL to contain IFR operations in controlled airspace during
portions of the terminal operation and while transitioning between the
enroute and terminal environments.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments to the proposal were received. However, the proposal was
published with incorrect coordinates for the location of Terry County
Airport. The correct coordinates for the airport should have been (Lat.
33 deg.10'25'' N, long. 102 deg.11'33'' W). The description of the
Class E airspace in this rule has been revised to reflect this change.
The FAA has determined that this is an editorial change and will not
increase the scope of this rule. Except for the non-substantive change
just discussed, the rule is adopted as proposed.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more AGL are published in Paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) amends the Class E airspace located at Terry County
Airport, Brownfield, TX, to provide controlled airspace extending
upward from 700 feet AGL for aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 02.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations that need frequent and
routine amendments 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 781
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the 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. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 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 1, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005: Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASW TX E5 Brownfield, TX [Revised]
Brownfield, Terry County Airport, TX
(Lat. 33 deg.10'25'' N., long. 102 deg.11'33'' W.)
Brownfield RBN
(Lat. 33 deg.10'45'' N., long. 102 deg.11'32'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Terry County Airport and within 2.5
miles each side of the 201 deg. bearing from the Brownfield RBN
extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 76.1 miles southwest of the
airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 15, 1996.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-13940 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13936 Revision of Class E Airspace; Belen, NM
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13936]
[[Page 28041]]
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ASW-25]
Revision of Class E Airspace; Belen, NM
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action revises the Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above ground level (AGL) at Belen, NM. The development of a
Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedure
(SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 21 at Alexander Municipal Airport has made this
action necessary. This action is intended to provide adequate Class E
airspace to contain instrument flight rule (IFR) operations for
aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 21 at Alexander Municipal
Airport, Belen, NM.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 U.T.C., August 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chuch Frankenfield, Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest
Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530,
telephone 817-222-5591.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On January 24, 1996, a proposal to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to revise the Class E airspace at
Belen, NM, was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 1870). A GPS
SIAP to RWY 21 developed for Alexander Municipal Airport, Belen, NM,
requires the revision of the Class E airspace at this airport. The
proposal was to revise the controlled airspace extending upward from
700 feet AGL to contain IFR operations in controlled airspace during
portions of the terminal operation and while transitioning between the
enroute and terminal environments.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments to the proposal were received. The rule is adopted as
proposed.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more AGL are published in Paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) amends the Class E airspace located at Alexander Municipal
Airport, Belen, NM, to provide controlled airspace extending upward
from 700 feet AGL for aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 21.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations that need frequent and
routine amendments 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).
Adoption of the 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. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005: Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASW NW E5 Belen, NM [Revised]
Belen, Alexander Municipal Airport, NW
(Lat. 34 deg.38'43'' N., long. 106 deg.50'01'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Alexander Municipal Airport and within
1.6 miles each side of the 034 deg. bearing from the airport
extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 7.8 miles northeast of the
airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 15, 1996.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-13936 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13935 Revision of Class E Airspace; Carlsbad, NM
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28041-28042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13935]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ASW-26]
Revision of Class E Airspace; Carlsbad, NM
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action revises the Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above ground level (AGL) at Carlsbad, NM. The development of a
Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedure
(SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 21 at Cavern City Air Terminal has made this
action necessary. This action is intended to provide adequate Class E
airspace to contain instrument flight rule (IFR) operations for
aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 21 at Cavern City Air Terminal,
Carlsbad, NM.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 U.T.C., August 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald J. Day, Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest
Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530,
telephone 817-222-5593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On January 24, 1996, a proposal to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to revise the Class E airspace at
Carlsbad, NM, was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 1869). A GPS
SIAP to RWY 21 developed for Cavern City Air Terminal, Carlsbad, NM,
requires the revision of Class E airspace at this airport. The proposal
was to establish controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL
to contain IFR operations in controlled airspace during portions of the
terminal operation and while transitioning between the enroute and
terminal environments.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
[[Page 28042]]
No comments to the proposal were received. However, the proposal was
published without coordinates for the location of the Cavern City Air
Terminal Localizer. The coordinates for the localizer (Lat.
32 deg.20'22''N, long. 104 deg.15'19''W) should have been included in
the Class E description. The final description of the Class E airspace
in this rule has been revised to reflect this change. The FAA has
determined that this is an editorial change and will not increase the
scope of this rule. Except for the non-substantive change just
discussed, the rule is adopted as proposed.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more AGL are published in Paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) revises the Class E airspace located at Carlsbad, NM, to
provide controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL for
aircraft executing the GSP SIAP to RWY 21 at Cavern City Air Terminal.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations that need frequent and
routine amendments 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).
Adoption of the 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. 40103; 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005: Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASW NM E5 Carlsbad, NM [Revised]
Carlsbad, Cavern City Air Terminal, NM
(Lat. 32 deg.20'15'' N., long. 104 deg.15'48'' W.)
Cavern City Air Terminal Localizer, NM
(Lat. 32 deg.20'22'' N., long. 104 deg.15'19'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.4-mile radius of Cavern City Air Terminal and within 1.4
miles each side of the Cavern City Air Terminal Localizer southwest
course extending from the 7.4-mile radius to 9.4 miles southwest of
the airport and within 1.8 miles each side of the 044 deg. bearing
from the airport from the 7.4-mile radius to 8.7 miles northeast of
the airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 15, 1996.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-13935 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13934 Revision of Class E Airspace; Hobbs, NM
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28042-28043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13934]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ASW-28]
Revision of Class E Airspace; Hobbs, NM
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action revises the Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above ground level (AGL) at Hobbs, NM. The development of a
Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedure
(SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 30 at Lea County Airport has made this action
necessary. This action is intended to provide adequate Class E airspace
to contain instrument flight rule (IFR) operations for aircraft
executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 30 at Lea County Airport, Hobbs, NM.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 U.T.C., August 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald J. Day, Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest
Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530,
telephone 817-222-5593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On November 22, 1995, a proposal to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to revise the Class E airspace at
Hobbs, NM, was published in the Federal Register (60 FR 57842). A GPS
SIAP to RWY 30 developed for Lea County Airport, Hobbs, NM, requires
the revision of the Class E airspace at this airport. The proposal was
to revise the controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL to
contain IFR operations in controlled airspace during portions of the
terminal operation and while transitioning between the enroute and
terminal environments.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments to the proposal were received. However, the proposal was
published with an incorrect coordinate for the location of the Lea
County Airport. The correct coordinates for the airport should have
been (Lat. 32 deg.41'15'' N, long, 103 deg.13'01'' W). The description
of the Class E airspace in this rule has been revised to reflect this
change. The FAA has determined that this is an editorial change and
will not increase the scope of this rule. Except for non-substantive,
editorial changes, the rule is adopted as proposed.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more AGL are published in Paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) amends the Class E airspace located at Lea County Airport,
Hobbs, NM, to provide controlled airspace extending upward from 700
feet AGL for aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 30.
[[Page 28043]]
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations that need frequent and
routine amendments 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).
Adoption of the 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. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005: Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASW NM E5 Hobbs, NM [Revised]
Hobbs, Lea County Airport, NM
(Lat. 32 deg.41'15'' N., long. 103 deg.13'01'' W.)
Hobbs VORTAC
(Lat. 32 deg.38'18'' N., long. 103 deg.16'10'' W.)
Lea County ILS Localizer
(Lat. 32 deg.41'39'' N., long. 103 deg.12'27'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.7-mile radius of Lea County Airport, and within 1.5 miles
each side of the 043 deg. radial of the Hobbs VORTAC extending from
the 6.7-mile radius to 9.7 miles northeast of the airport, and
within 1.6 miles each side of the Lea County ILS Localizer northeast
course extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 9.7 miles northeast of
the airport, and within 1.6 miles each side of the ILS Localizer
southwest course extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 10.6 miles
southwest of the airport, and within 1.5 miles each side of the
222 deg. radial of the Hobbs VORTAC extending from the 6.7-mile
radius to 10.6 miles southwest of the airport, and 1.8-miles each
side of the 125 deg. bearing from the airport extending from the
6.7-mile radius 9.1 miles southeast of the airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 15, 1996.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-13934 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13933 Revision of Class E Airspace; Deming, NM
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28043-28044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13933]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ASW-27]
Revision of Class E Airspace; Deming, NM
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action revises the Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above ground level (AGL) at Deming, NM. The development of a
Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedure
(SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 04 at Deming Municipal Airport has made this
action necessary. This action is intended to provide adequate Class E
airspace to contain instrument flight rule (IFR) operations for
airspace executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 04 at Deming Municipal Airport,
Deming, NM.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 U.T.C., August 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald J. Day, Operations Branch, Air
Traffic Division, Southwest Region, Federal Aviation Administration,
Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530, telephone 817-222-5593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On November 22, 1995, a proposal to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to revise the Class E airspace at
Deming, NM, was published in the Federal Register (60 FR 57843). A GPS
SIAP to RWY 04 developed for Deming Municipal Airport, Deming, NM,
requires the revision of the Class E airspace at this airport. The
proposal was to revise the controlled airspace extending upward from
700 feet AGL to contain IFR operations in controlled airspace during
portions of the terminal operation and while transitioning between the
enroute and terminal environments.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments to the proposal were received. The rule is adopted as
proposed.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more AGL are published in Paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9c dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) amends the Class E airspace located at Deming Municipal
Airport, Deming, NM, to provide controlled airspace extending upward
from 700 feet AGL for aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 04.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations that need frequent and
routine amendments 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).
Adoption of the 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. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
[[Page 28044]]
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005: Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASW NM E5 Deming, NM [Revised]
Deming Municipal Airport, NM
(Lat. 32 deg.15'44'' N., long. 107 deg.43'14'' W.)
Deming VORTAC
(Lat. 32 deg.16'33'' N., long. 107 deg.36'20'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.8-mile radius of Deming Municipal Airport, and within 1.6
miles each side of the 081 deg. radial of the Deming VORTAC
extending from the 6.8-mile radius to 12.3 miles east of the
airport, and within 1.8 miles each side of the 232 deg. bearing from
the airport extending from the 6.8-mile radius to 8.2 miles
southwest of the airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 15, 1996.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-13933 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13932 Establishment of Class E Airspace; Tallulah, LA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13932]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ASW-12]
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Tallulah, LA
agency: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
action: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
summary: This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above ground level (AGL) at Tallulah, LA. The development of a
Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedure
(SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 18 at Vicksburg/Tallulah Regional Airport has
made this action necessary. This action is intended to provide adequate
Class E airspace to contain instrument flight rule (IFR) operations for
aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 18 at Vicksburg/Tallulah
Regional Airport, Tallulah, LA.
effective date: 0901 U.T.C., August 15, 1996.
for further information contact: Donald J. Day, Operations Branch, Air
Traffic Division, Southwest Region, Federal Aviation Administration,
Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530, telephone 817-222-5593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On January 24, 1996, a proposal to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish the Class E airspace
at Tallulah, LA, was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 1863). A
GPS SIAP to RWY 18 developed for Vicksburg/Tallulah Regional Airport,
Tallulah, LA, requires the establishment of Class E airspace at this
airport. The proposal was to establish controlled airspace extending
upward from 700 feet AGL to contain IFR operations in controlled
airspace during portions of the terminal operation and while
transitioning between the enroute and terminal environments.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments to the proposal were received. The rule is adopted as
proposed.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more AGL are published in Paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR Part 71) amends the Class E airspace located at Tallulah, LA, to
provide controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL for
aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 18.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations that need frequent and
routine amendments 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).
Adoption of the 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. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005: Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASW LA E5 Tallulah, LA [New]
Vicksburg/Tallulah Regional Airport, LA
(Lat. 32 deg.21'06'' N., long. 091 deg.01'39'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Vicksburg/Tallulah Regional Airport
excluding that airspace which overlies the Vicksburg, MS, Class E
area.
* * * * *
Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 15, 1996.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-13932 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13931 Revision of Class E Airspace; Santa Fe, NM
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28044-28045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13931]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ASW-13]
Revision of Class E Airspace; Santa Fe, NM
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action revises the Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above ground level (AGL) at Santa Fe, NM. The development of a
Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedure
(SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 28 at Santa Fe Municipal Airport has made this
action necessary. This action is intended to provide adequate Class E
airspace to contain instrument flight rule (IFR)
[[Page 28045]]
operations for aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 28 at Santa Fe
Municipal Airport, Santa Fe, NM.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 U.T.C., August 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chuck Frankenfield, Operation Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest
Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530,
telephone 817-222-5591.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On January 24, 1996, a proposal to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to revise the Class E airspace at
Santa Fe, NM, was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 1862). A GPS
SIAP to RWY 28 developed for Santa Fe Municipal Airport, Santa Fe, NM,
requires the revision of the Class E airspace at this airport. The
proposal was to revise the controlled airspace extending upward from
700 feet AGL to contain IFR operations in controlled airspace during
portions of the terminal operation and while transitioning between the
enroute and terminal environments.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments to the proposal were received. However, the proposal was
published with incorrect coordinates for the location of the Santa Fe
Municipal Airport. The correct coordinates for the airport should have
been (Lat. 35 deg.37'00'' N, long. 106 deg.05'17'' W). The description
of the Class E airspace in this rule has been revised to reflect this
change. The FAA has determined that this is an editorial change and
will not increase the scope of this rule. Except for the non-
substantive change just discussed, the rule is adopted as proposed. The
coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum
83. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward
from 700 feet or more AGL are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) amends the Class E airspace located at Santa Fe Municipal
Airport, Santa Fee, NM, to provide controlling airspace extending
upward from 700 feet AGL for aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 28.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations that need frequent and
routine amendments 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).
Adoption of the 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. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005: Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASW NM E5 Santa Fe, NM [Revised]
Santa Fe County Municipal Airport, NM
(Lat. 35 deg.37'00'' N, long. 106 deg.05'17'' W)
Santa Fe VORTAC
(Lat. 35 deg.32'26'' N, long. 106 deg.03'54'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 9.7-mile radius of Santa Fe County Municipal Airport, and
within 8 miles east and 4 miles west of the 165 deg. radial of the
Santa Fe VORTAC extending from the 9.7-mile radius to 20.8 miles
southeast of the airport and within 2 miles each side of the
112 deg. radial from the Santa Fe County Municipal Airport extending
from the 9.7-mile radius to 10.4 miles east of the airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Fort Worth, TX on May 15, 1996.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-13931 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13930 Revision of Class E Airspace; Hondo, TX
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28036-28037]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13930]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ASW-14]
Revision of Class E Airspace; Hondo, TX
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action revises the Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above ground level (AGL) at Hondo, TX. The development of a
Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedure
(SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 17 at Hondo Municipal Airport has made this
action necessary. This action is intended to provide adequate Class E
airspace to contain instrument flight rule (IFR) operations for
aircraft executing the GSP SIAP to RWY 17 at Hondo Municipal Airport,
Hondo, TX.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 u.t.c., August 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chuck Frankenfield, Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest
Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 67193-0530,
telephone 817-222-5591.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On January 24, 1996, a proposal to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) to revise the Class E airspace at
Hondo, TX, was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 1868). A GPS
SIAP to RWY 17 developed for Hondo Municipal Airport, Hondo, TX,
requires the revision of the Class E airspace at this airport. The
proposal was to revise the controlled airspace extending upward from
700 feet AGL to contain IFR operations in controlled airspace during
portions of the terminal operations and while transitioning between the
enroute and terminal environments.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments to the proposal were received. The rule is adopted as
prepared.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more AGL are published in Paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) amends the Class E airspace located at Hondo Municipal
Airport, Hondo, TX, to provide controlled airspace extending upward
from 700 feet AGL for aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 17.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations that need frequent and
routine amendments 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).
Adoption of the 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. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005: Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASW TX E5 Hondo, TX [Revised]
Hondo Municipal Airport, TX
(Lat. 29 deg.21'35'' N., long. 99 deg.10'36'' W.)
Hondo RBN
(Lat. 29 deg.22'24'' N., long. 99 deg.10'19'' W.)
Hondo VOR
[[Page 28037]]
(Lat. 29 deg.21'16'' N., long. 99 deg.10'33'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.7-mile radius of the Hondo Municipal Airport and within 8
miles west and 4 miles east of the 180 deg. bearing from the Hondo
RBN extending from the airport to 16 miles south of the RBN and
within 2.3 miles each side of the 352 deg. radial of the Hondo VOR
extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 6.9 miles north of the airport
and within 2 miles each side of the 360 deg. radial of the airport
extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 10.5 miles north of the
airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 15, 1996.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-13930 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13929 Revision of Class E Airspace; Gainesville, TX
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28037]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13929]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ASW-15]
Revision of Class E Airspace; Gainesville, TX
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action revises the Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above ground level (AGL) at Gainesville, TX. The development
of a Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach
Procedure (SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 17 at Gainesville Municipal Airport
has made this action necessary. This action is intended to provide
adequate Class E airspace to contain instrument flight rule (IFR)
operations for aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 17 at Gainesville
Municipal Airport, Gainesville, TX.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 u.t.c., August 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chuck Frankenfield, Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest
Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530,
telephone 817-222-5591.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On January 24, 1996, a proposal to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to revise the Class E airspace at
Gainesville, TX, was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 1860). A
GPS SIAP to RWY 17 developed for Gainesville Municipal Airport,
Gainesville, TX, requires the revision of the Class E airspace at this
airport. The proposal was to revise the controlled airspace extending
upward from 700 feet AGL to contain IFR operations in controlled
airspace during portions of the terminal operation and while
transitioning between the enroute and terminal environments.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments to the proposal were received. The rule is adopted as
prepared.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more AGL are published in Paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) amends the Class E airspace located at Gainesville
Municipal Airport, Gainesville, TX, to provide controlled airspace
extending upward from 700 feet AGL for aircraft executing the GPS SIAP
to RWY 17.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations that need frequent and
routine amendments 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).
Adoption of the 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. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005: Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASW TX E5 Gainesville, TX [Revised]
Gainesville Municipal Airport, TX
(Lat. 33 deg.38'57'' N., long. 97 deg.11'43'' W.)
Gainesville RBN
(Lat. 33 deg.42'24'' N., long. 99 deg.10'19'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Gainesville Municipal Airport and within
1.5 miles each side of the 003 deg. bearing from the Gainesville RBN
extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 9.3 miles north of the airport
and within 1 mile each side of the 001 deg. bearing from the airport
from the 6.6-mile radius to 10.4 miles north of the airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 15, 1996.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-13929 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13927 Establishment of Class E Airspace; Sallisaw, OK
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28037-28038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13927]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ASW-32]
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Sallisaw, OK
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above ground level (AGL) at Sallisaw, OK. The development of a
Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedure
(SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 35 and a SIAP, utilizing the Sallisaw
Nondirectional Radio Beacon (NDB) at Sallisaw Municipal Airport have
made this action necessary. This action is intended to provide adequate
Class E airspace to contain instrument flight rule (IFR) operations for
aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 35 and the NDB or GPS SIAP to
RWY 35 at Sallisaw Municipal Airport, Sallisaw, OK.
[[Page 28038]]
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 U.T.C., August 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald J. Day, Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest
Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530,
telephone 817-222-5593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On January 31, 1996, a proposal to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish the Class E Airspace
at Sallisaw, OK, was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 3354). A
GPS SIAP to RWY 35 and a NDB or GPS SIAP to RWY 35 developed for
Sallisaw Municipal Airport, Sallisaw, OK, requires the establishment of
Class E airspace at this airport. The proposal was to establish
controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL to contain IFR
operations in controlled airspace during portions of the terminal
operation and while transitioning between the enroute and terminal
environments.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments to the proposal were received. The rule is adopted as
proposed.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more AGL are published in Paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) establishes Class E airspace at Sallisaw, OK, to provide
controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL for aircraft
executing the GPS SIAP and NDB or GPS SIAP to RWY 35 at Sallisaw
Municipal Airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations that need frequent and
routine amendments 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).
Adoption of the 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. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005: Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005: Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASW OK E5 Sallisaw, OK [New]
Sallisaw Municipal Airport, OK
(Lat. 35 deg.26'18'' N., long. 94 deg.48'08'' W.)
Sallisaw NDB
(Lat. 35 deg.23'55'' N., long. 94 deg.47'39'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Sallisaw Municipal Airport and within
3.2 miles each side of the 165 deg. bearing of the Sallisaw NDB
extending from the 6.5-mile radius of 9.5 miles south of the
airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Fort Worth, TX on May 15, 1996.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-13927 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13926 Establishment of Class E Airspace; Livingston, TX
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28038-28039]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13926]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ASW-21]
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Livingston, TX
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above ground level (AGL) at Livingston, TX. The development of
a Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach
procedure (SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 30 at Livingston Municipal Airport has
made this action necessary. This action is intended to provide adequate
Class E airspace to contain instrument flight rule (IFR) operations for
aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 30 at Livingston Municipal
Airport, Livingston, TX.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 U.T.C., August 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald J. Day, Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest
Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530,
telephone 817-222-5593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On January 24, 1996, a proposal to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish the Class E airspace
at Livingston, TX, was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 1874).
A GPS SIAP to RWY 30 developed for Livingston Municipal Airport,
Livingston, TX, requires the establishment of Class E airspace at this
airport. The proposal was to establish controlled airspace extending
upward from 700 feet AGL to contain IFR operations in controlled
airspace during portions of the terminal operation and while
transitioning between the enroute and terminal environments.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments to the proposal were
[[Page 28039]]
received. The rule is adopted as proposed.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more AGL are published in Paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) establishes Class E airspace located at Livingston, TX, to
provide controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL for
aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 30.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations that need frequent and
routine amendments 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).
Adoption of the 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. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005: Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASW TX E5 Livingston, TX [New]
Livingston, Livingston Municipal Airport, TX
(Lat. 30 deg.41'9'' N., long. 095 deg.01'05'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Livingston Municipal Airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Forth Worth, TX, on May 15, 1996.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-13926 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13925 Revision of Class E Airspace; Marshall, TX
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28039-28040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13925]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ASW-22]
Revision of Class E Airspace; Marshall, TX
AGENCY: Department of Transportation (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action revises the Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above ground level (AGL) at Marshall, TX. The development of a
Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedure
(SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 33 at Harrison County Airport has made this
action necessary. This action is intended to provide adequate Class E
airspace to contain instrument flight rule (IFR) operations for
aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 33 at Harrison County Airport,
Marshall, TX.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 U.T.C., August 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald J. Day, Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest
Region, Department of Transportation, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530,
telephone 817-222-5593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On January 24, 1996, a proposal to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to revise the Class E airspace at
Marshall, TX, was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 1873). A GPS
SIAP to RWY 33 developed for Harrison County Airport, Marshall, TX,
requires the revision of Class E airspace at this airport. The proposal
was to establish controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL
to contain IFR operations in controlled airspace during portions of the
terminal operation and while transitioning between the enroute and
terminal environments.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments to the proposal were received. However, the proposal was
published with an incorrect coordinate for the location of the Harrison
County Airport. The correct coordinates for the airport should have
been (Lat. 32 deg.31'18'' N, long. 094 deg.18'29'' W). The description
of the Class E airspace in this rule has been revised to reflect this
change. The FAA has determined that this is an editorial change and
will not increase the scope of this rule. Except for the non-
substantive change just discussed, the rule is adopted as proposed.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more AGL are published in Paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) revises the Class E airspace located at Marshall, TX, to
provide controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL for
aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 33.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations that need frequent and
routine amendments 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).
[[Page 28040]]
Adoption of the 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. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005: Class A Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASW TX E5 Marshall, TX [Revised]
Marshall, Harrison County Airport, TX
(Lat. 32 deg.31'18'' N., long. 94 deg.18'29'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Harrison County Airport and within 1.8
miles each side of the 157 deg. bearing from the airport extending
from the 6.6-mile radius to 8.6 miles southeast of the airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 15, 1996.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-13925 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13924 Establishment of Class E Airspace; Reserve, LA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28045-28046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13924]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ASW-16]
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Reserve, LA
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above ground level (AGL) at Reserve, LA. The development of a
Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedure
(SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 17 at Saint John The Baptist Parish Airport has
made this action necessary. This action is intended to provide adequate
Class E airspace to contain instrument flight rule (IFR) operations for
aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 17 at Saint John The Baptist
Parish Airport, Reserve, LA.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 U.T.C., August 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chuck Frankenfield, Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest
Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530,
telephone 817-222-5591.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On January 24, 1996, a proposal to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Class E airspace at
Reserve, LA, was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 1861). A GPS
SIAP to RWY 17 developed for Saint John The Baptist Parish Airport,
Reserve, LA, requires the establishment of the Class E airspace at this
airport. The proposal was to establish controlled airspace extending
upward from 700 feet AGL to contain IFR operations in controlled
airspace during portions of the terminal operation and while
transitioning between the enroute and terminal environments.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments to the proposal were received. Except for the non-
substantive change just discussed and editorial
[[Page 28046]]
changes, the rule is adopted as proposed. However, the proposal was
published with an incorrect coordinates for the location of the Saint
John The Baptist Parish Airport. The correct coordinates for the
airport should have been (Lat. 30 deg.05'21'' N, long. 90 deg.34'54''
W). The description of the Class E airspace in this rule has been
revised to reflect this change. The FAA has determined that this is an
editorial change and will not increase the scope of this rule.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more AGL are published in Paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) establishes Class E airspace located at Saint John The
Baptist Parish Airport, Reserve, LA, to provide controlled airspace
extending upward from 700 feet AGL for aircraft executing the GPS SIAP
to RWY 17.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations that need frequent and
routine amendments 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).
Adoption of the 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. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005: Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASW LA E5 Reserve, LA [New]
Saint John The Baptist Parish Airport, LA
(Lat. 30 deg.05'21'' N. long. 090 deg.34'54'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.1-mile radius of Saint John The Baptist Parish Airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 15, 1996.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-13924 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13922 Establishment of Class E Airspace; Midlothian-Waxahachie, TX
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13922]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ASW-19]
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Midlothian-Waxahachie, TX
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above ground level (AGL) at Midlothian-Waxahachie Municipal
Airport, Midlothian-Waxahachie, TX. The development of a Global
Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP)
to Runway (RWY) 36 at Midlothian-Waxahachie Municipal Airport has made
this action necessary. This action is intended to provide adequate
Class E airspace to contain instrument flight rule (IFR) operations for
aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 36 at Midlothian-Waxahachie
Municipal Airport, Modlothian-Waxahachie, TX.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 u.t.c., August 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chuck Frankenfield, Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest
Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530,
telephone 817-222-5591.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On January 24, 1996, a proposal to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Class E airspace at
Midlothian-Waxahachie, TX, was published in the Federal Register (61 FR
1866). A GPS SIAP to RWY 36 developed for Midlothian-Waxahachie
Municipal Airport, requires the establishment of the Class E airspace
at this airport. The proposal was to establish controlled airspace
extending upward from 700 feet AGL to contain IFR operation in
controlled airspace during portions of the terminal operation and while
transitioning between the enroute and terminal environments.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments to the proposal were received. The rule is adopted as
proposed.
The coordinate for this airspace docket are based on North American
Datum 83. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas extending
upward from 700 feet or more AGL are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA
Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) establishes Class E airspace located at Midlothian-
Waxahachie Municipal Airport, Midlothian-Waxahachie, TX, to provide
controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL for aircraft
executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 36.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations that need frequent and
routine amendments 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).
Adoption of the 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. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005: Class E. Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASW TX E5 Midlothian-Waxahachie, TX [New]
Midlothian-Waxahachie, Midlothian-Waxahachie Municipal Airport, TX
(Lat. 32 deg.27'22'' N., long. 096 deg.54'45'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Midlothian-Waxahachie Municipal Airport,
excluding that airspace which overlies the Dallas-Fort Worth, TX
Class E area.
* * * * *
Issued in Forth Worth, TX, on May 15, 1996.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-13922 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13920 Technical Assistance
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27998-28000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13920]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Natural Resources Conservation Service
7 CFR Part 610
Technical Assistance
AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 301(c) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (FAIRA) requires the Secretary of Agriculture to
publish in the Federal Register, within 60 days of the enactment of
FAIRA, the universal soil loss equation (USLE) and wind erosion
equation (WEQ) used by the Department of Agriculture (the Department)
as of the date of publication. The Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) utilizes factors from the USLE, the revised universal
soil loss equation (RUSLE) and the WEQ in equations to predict soil
erosion due to water and wind. The Department was first required to use
the factors from the USLE and WEQ to make highly erodible land (HEL)
determinations under the Food Security Act (FSA) of 1985, Pub. L. 99-
198. The FSA defined HEL as land that has the potential for an
excessive annual rate of erosion in relation to the soil loss tolerance
level as determined by the Secretary through application of factors
from the USLE and WEQ.
This final rule sets forth the USLE and WEQ used by the Department
as of this date and the circumstances under the equations are used.
Since the first mandated use of the USLE in 1985, the technology used
to predict soil erosion due to water has been refined. The refinement
is reflected in a revised USLE (RUSLE) which will also be used under
the circumstances described in this rule.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective June 3, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David L. Schertz, National Agronomist,
Natural Resources Conservation Service, P.O. Box 2890, Washington, D.C.
20013; Fax 202-720-2646 or Internet:[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Rulemaking Analyses
EO 12291: Not major.
Regulatory Flexibility Act: No significant impact.
Paperwork Reduction Act: Does not apply.
National Environmental Policy Act: Not applicable.
Civil Rights Impact Analysis: Not applicable.
Federalism Assessment: Does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant an assessment.
Unfunded Mandate: Not applicable.
Background And Purpose
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the United
States Department of Agriculture (the Department), utilizes the
universal soil loss equation (USLE), the revised universal soil loss
equation (RUSLE) and the wind erosion equation (WEQ) to predict soil
erosion due to water and wind. Section 301(c) of the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIRA), which was
enacted April 4, 1996, requires the Secretary of Agriculture to publish
in the Federal Register by June 3, 1996, the USLE and WEQ used by the
Department as of the date of publication. NRCS is publishing the
equations and the rules under which the USLE, RUSLE, and WEQ factors
are used for administering programs.
The equation for predicting soil loss due to erosion for both the
USLE and RUSLE is A=R x K x LS x C x P. The factors in the equation
have the following definitions:
1. A is the estimation of average annual soil loss in tons per acre
caused by sheet and rill erosion.
2. R is the rainfall erosivity factor.
3. K is the soil erodibility factor.
4. LS is the slope length and steepness factor.
5. C is the cover and management factor.
6. P is the support practice factor.
A paper published by K.G. Renard, et al., in the May-June, 1994
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, volume 49(3), pages 213-220,
entitled, ``RUSLE revisited: Status, questions, answers, and the
future'', describes the revision. Primary differences between the USLE
and RUSLE include the following:
R Factor: RUSLE includes more R values for the Western United
States than the USLE. For the eastern United States, R values are
generally the same as those used in the USLE but includes some
revisions.
K Factor: Values used in RUSLE are similar to the USLE values but
are adjusted to account for changes, such as freezing and thawing, and
soil moisture. These adjustments are calculated at one-half month
intervals for use in RUSLE and are applicable in the northern and
southern plains, midwest, southern, and eastern United States.
LS Factor: USLE uses one LS table; RUSLE uses four LS tables, as
determined by the relationship of rill to interrill erosion. Although
both the USLE and RUSLE can account for the effects of complex slopes,
RUSLE simplifies this LS determination through the use of computer
technology.
C Factor: USLE provides estimates of soil changes for 4-5 crop
stage periods throughout the year. RUSLE provides estimates of cover
and soil changes on one-half month intervals, especially in relation to
canopy, surface residue, residue just under the surface, and the
effects of climate on residue decomposition, roughness, roots, and soil
consolidation.
P Factor: USLE uses P factors for contouring, contour
stripcropping, and terracing from table values established for field
slope ranges; and for terraces, the P factor is also based on channel
gradients. RUSLE uses P factors for farming across the slope and
includes new process-based routines to determine the effect of
stripcropping and buffer strips. Values for farming across the slope
are based on slope length and steepness, row grade, ridge height, storm
severity, soil infiltration, and the cover and roughness conditions.
The stripcropping P factor is based on the amount and location of soil
deposition.
The equation for predicting soil loss due to wind erosion is
E=f(IKCLV). The factors in the equation have the following definitions:
1. E is the estimation of average annual soil loss in tons per
acre.
2. f indicates the equation includes functional relationships that
are not straight-line mathematical calculations.
3. I is the soil erodibility index.
4. K is the ridge roughness factor.
5. C is the climatic factor. All climatic factor values are
expressed as a percentage of the value established at Garden City,
Kansas. Garden City, Kansas was the location of early research in the
WEQ and established the standard for climatic factors against which the
other locations are measured.
6. L is the unsheltered distance across an erodible field, measured
along the prevailing wind erosion direction.
7. V is the vegetative cover factor.
The Department was first statutorily required to use the factors
from the USLE and WEQ to make highly erodible land (HEL) determinations
under the Food Security Act (FSA) of 1985, Pub. L. 99-198. The
Department published the equations used to determine HEL during
promulgation of the regulations
[[Page 27999]]
implementing the HEL and wetland conservation provisions of the FSA, 7
CFR Part 12 (see Federal Register, Vol. 52, No. 180, page 35194,
September 17, 1987). Section 12.21 provides that land in a soil map
unit will be considered to be highly erodible if the quotient of either
the RKLS/T or the CI/T equals or exceeds 8. The factors, R, K, and LS
are from the USLE. The USLE factors are explained in the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Handbook 537. The factors C and I are from
the WEQ. The WEQ factors are explained in a paper by N.P. Woodruff and
F.H. Siddaway, 1965. The soil loss tolerance (T) value represents the
average annual rate of soil erosion that could occur without causing a
decline in long term productivity. The specific factors values which
are used for determining whether soil map units are considered to be
highly erodible are published in the local Field Office Technical Guide
(FOTG) which is maintained in each NRCS field office. The values
published as of January 1, 1990, in the FOTG are the basis for all HEL
determinations. The FOTG is available for review in each NRCS field
office. The values vary across the country to correspond to differences
in climate, soil types, and topography.
Since the publication of the USLE in 1985, additional research on
erosion processes has resulted in refined technology for determining
the factor values in the USLE. RUSLE represents a revision of the USLE
technology in how the factor values in the equation are determined.
RUSLE is explained in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 703,
``Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning
with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE).''
Since the passage of the FSA in 1985, USLE and WEQ have been used
to compile the highly erodible soils list and to make highly erodible
field determinations. USLE has been used to develop conservation plans
and revisions and to conduct status reviews. As new understanding is
gained through research on erosion processes, updates of erosion
prediction equations can occur. Changing the highly erodible soils list
and field determinations each time these technologies are updated would
be disruptive to farmers and impractical for long range planning.
Therefore, no changes to the existing highly erodible soils list or
field determinations will be made as a result of the implementation of
RUSLE. However, as technology is improved, such as with RUSLE, NRCS
will use it to develop new conservation plans, plan revisions, and to
conduct status reviews. NRCS will not require producers to meet more
restrictive levels of erosion reduction that might result from using
RUSLE instead of USLE while carrying out existing conservation plans.
Therefore, all existing conservation plans developed using USLE, that
have been implemented, will remain acceptable plans for purposes of the
HEL conservation provisions of the FSA.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 610
Soil conservation, Technical assistance, Water resources.
For the reasons set forth above, 7 CFR Part 610 is amended as
follows:
PART 610--TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
1. The authority for Part 610 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 590a-590f, 590q, 3801(a)(9).
Secs. 610.1-610.5. [Designated as Subpart A]
2. Sections 610.1 through 610.5 are designated as subpart A--
Conservation Operations.
3. Section 610.1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 610.1 Purpose.
This subpart sets forth Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) policies and procedures for furnishing technical assistance in
conservation operations.
4. Subpart B--Soil Erosion Prediction Equations containing
Secs. 610.11 through 610.14 is added to read as follows:
Subpart B--Soil Erosion Prediction Equations
Sec.
610.11 Purpose and scope.
610.12 Equations for predicting soil loss due to water erosion.
610.13 Equations for predicting soil loss due to wind erosion.
610.14 Use of USLE, RUSLE, and WEQ.
Subpart B--Soil Erosion Prediction Equations
Sec. 610.11 Purpose and scope.
This subpart sets forth the equations and rules for utilizing the
equations that are used by the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) to predict soil erosion due to water and wind. Section 301 of
the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIRA) and
the Food Security Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 3801-3813 specified that
the Secretary would publish the universal soil loss equation (USLE) and
wind erosion equation (WEQ) used by the Department within 60 days of
the enactment of FAIRA. This subpart sets forth the equations,
definition of factors, and provides the rules under which NRCS will
utilize the USLE, the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE), and
the WEQ.
Sec. 610.12 Equations for predicting soil loss due to water erosion.
(a) The equation for predicting soil loss due to erosion for both
the USLE and the RUSLE is A=R x K x LS x C x P. (For further
information about USLE see the U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook
537, ``Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses--A Guide to Conservation
Planning,'' dated 1978. Copies of this document are available from the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, P.O. Box 2890, Washington, DC
20013. For further information about RUSLE see the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Handbook 703, ``Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide
to Conservation Planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
(RUSLE).'' Copies may be purchased from the National Technical
Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.)
(b) The factors in the USLE equation are:
(1) A is the estimation of average annual soil loss in tons per
acre caused by sheet and rill erosion.
(2) R is the rainfall erosivity factor. Accounts for the energy and
intensity of rainstorms.
(3) K is the soil erodibility factor. Measures the susceptibility
of a soil to erode under a standard condition.
(4) LS is the slope length and steepness factor. Accounts for the
effect of length and steepness of slope on erosion.
(5) C is the cover and management factor. Estimates the soil loss
ratio for each of 4 or 5 crop stage periods throughout the year,
accounting for the combined effect of all the interrelated cover and
management variables.
(6) P is the support practice factor. Accounts for the effect of
conservation support practices, such as contouring, contour
stripcropping, and terraces on soil erosion.
(c) The factors in the RUSLE equation are defined as follows:
(1) A is the estimation of average annual soil loss in tons per
acre caused by sheet and rill erosion.
(2) R is the rainfall erosivity factor. Accounts for the energy and
intensity of rainstorms.
(3) K is the soil erodibility factor. Measures the susceptibility
of a soil to erode under a standard condition and adjusts it bi-monthly
for the effects of freezing and thawing, and soil moisture.
(4) LS is the slope length and steepness factor. Accounts for the
effect of length and steepness of slope on
[[Page 28000]]
erosion based on 4 tables reflecting the relationship of rill to
interrill erosion.
(5) C is the cover and management factor. Estimates the soil loss
ratio at one-half month intervals throughout the year, accounting for
the individual effects of prior land use, crop canopy, surface cover,
surface roughness, and soil moisture.
(6) P is the support practice factor. Accounts for the effect of
conservation support practices, such as cross-slope farming,
stripcropping, buffer strips, and terraces on soil erosion.
Sec. 610.13 Equations For Predicting Soil Loss Due To Wind Erosion.
(a) The equation for predicting soil loss due to wind in the Wind
Erosion Equation (WEQ) is E=f(IKCLV). (For further information on WEQ
see the paper by N.P. Woodruff and F.H. Siddaway, 1965. ``A Wind
Erosion Equation,'' Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, Vol.
29, No. 5, pages 602-608, which is available from the American Society
of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin. In addition, the use of the WEQ in
NRCS is explained in the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
National Agronomy Manual, 190-V-NAM, second ed., Part 502, March, 1988,
which is available from the NRCS, P.O. Box 2890, Washington, DC 20013.)
(c) The factors in the WEQ equation are defined as follows:
(1) E is the estimation of the average annual soil loss in tons per
acre.
(2) f indicates the equation includes functional relationships that
are not straight-line mathematical calculations.
(3) I is the soil erodibility index. It is the potential for soil
loss from a wide, level, unsheltered, isolated field with a bare,
smooth, loose and uncrusted surface. Soil erodibility is based on soil
surface texture, calcium carbonate content, and percent day.
(4) K is the ridge roughness factor. It is a measure of the effect
of ridges formed by tillage and planting implements on wind erosion.
The ridge roughness is based on ridge spacing, height, and erosive wind
directions in relation to the ridge direction
(5) C is the climatic factor. It is a measure of the erosive
potential of the wind speed and surface moisture at a given location
compared with the same factors at Garden City, Kansas. The annual
climatic factor at Garden City is arbitrarily set at 100. All climatic
factor values are expressed as a percentage of that at Garden City.
(6) L is the unsheltered distance. It is the unsheltered distance
across an erodible field, measured along the prevailing wind erosion
direction. This distance is measured beginning at a stable border on
the upwind side and continuing downward to the nonerodible or stable
area, or to the downwind edge of the area being evaluated.
(7) V is the vegetative cover factor. It accounts for the kind,
amount, and orientation of growing plants or plant residue on the soil
surface.
Sec. 610.14 Use of USLE, RUSLE, and WEQ.
(a) All Highly Erodible Land (HEL) determinations are based on the
formulas set forth in 7 CFR Sec. 12.21 using some of the factors from
the USLE and WEQ and the factor values that were contained in the local
Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG) as of January 1, 1990. In addition,
this includes the soil loss tolerance values used in those formulas for
determining HEL. The soil loss tolerance value is used as one of the
criteria for planning soil conservation systems. These values are
available in the FOTG in the local field office of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service.
(b) RUSLE will be used to:
(1)(i) Evaluate the soil loss estimates of conservation systems
contained in the FOTG.
(ii) Evaluate the soil loss estimates of systems actually applied,
where those systems were applied differently than specified in the
conservation plan adopted by the producer or where a conservation plan
was not developed, in determining whether a producer has complied with
the HEL conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as
amended, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 3801 et seq., set forth in 7 CFR Part 12; and
(2) Develop new or revised conservation plans.
Dated: May 30, 1996.
Paul W. Johnson,
Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
[FR Doc. 96-13920 Filed 5-31-96; 11:33 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13913 North Carolina State Plan: Approval of Revised Compliance Staffing Benchmarks
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28053-28055]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13913]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1952
[Docket No. T-015A]
North Carolina State Plan: Approval of Revised Compliance
Staffing Benchmarks
AGENCY: Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA).
ACTION: Approval of revised State compliance staffing benchmarks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends Subpart I of 29 CFR 1952 to reflect the
Assistant Secretary's decision to approve revised compliance staffing
benchmarks of 64 safety inspectors and 50 industrial hygienists for the
North Carolina State plan.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Cyr, Acting Director, Office of
Information and Consumer Affairs, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3637, 200 Constitution
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210, (202) 219-8148.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (``the
Act,'' 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) provides that States which desire to
assume responsibility for developing and enforcing occupational safety
and health standards may do so by submitting, and obtaining Federal
approval of, a State plan. Section 18(c) of the Act sets forth the
statutory criteria for plan approval, and among these criteria is the
requirement that the State's plan provide satisfactory assurances that
the
[[Page 28054]]
state agency or agencies responsible for implementing the plan have ``*
* * the qualified personnel necessary for the enforcement of * * *
standards,'' 29 U.S.C. 667(c)(4).
A 1978 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals and the resultant
implementing order issued by the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia (AFL-CIO v. Marshall, C.A. No. 74-406) interpreted this
provision of the Act to require States operating approved State plans
to have sufficient compliance personnel necessary to assure a ``fully
effective'' enforcement effort. The Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health (the Assistant Secretary) was directed
to establish ``fully effective'' compliance staffing levels, or
benchmarks, for each State plan.
In 1980 OSHA submitted a Report to the Court containing these
benchmarks and requiring North Carolina to allocate 83 safety and 119
health compliance personnel to conduct inspections under the plan.
Attainment of the 1980 benchmark levels or subsequent revision thereto
is a prerequisite for State plan final approval consideration under
section 18(e) of the Act.
Both the 1978 Court Order and the 1980 Report to the Court
explicitly contemplate subsequent revisions to the benchmarks in light
of more current data, including State-specific information, and other
relevant considerations. In August 1983 OSHA, together with State plan
representatives, initiated a comprehensive review and revision of the
1980 benchmarks. The State of North Carolina participated in this
benchmark revision process, which resulted in a methodology whereby a
State could submit data that would justify revision of its 1980
benchmarks. In May 1992, North Carolina proposed to the Assistant
Secretary revised compliance staffing levels for a ``fully effective''
program responsive to the occupational safety and health needs of the
State. (A complete discussion of both the 1980 benchmarks and the
present revision system process is set forth in the January 16, 1985
Federal Register (50 FR 2491) regarding the Wyoming occupational safety
and health plan.)
Proposed Revision of Benchmarks
In 1980, OSHA submitted a report to the Court containing the
benchmarks and requiring North Carolina to allocate 83 safety
compliance officers and 119 industrial hygienists. Pursuant to the
initiative begun in August 1983 by the State plan designees as a group,
and in accord with the formula and general principles established by
that group for individual State revision of benchmarks, North Carolina
reassessed the compliance staffing necessary for a ``fully effective''
occupational safety and health program in the State. In September 1984,
North Carolina requested that the Assistant Secretary approve revised
compliance staffing levels of 50 safety and 27 health compliance
officers for a ``fully effective'' program responsive to the
occupational safety and health needs and circumstances in the State.
These revised benchmarks were approved by the Assistant Secretary on
January 17, 1986 (51 FR 2481).
In March 1989 the North Carolina House Appropriations Committee of
the North Carolina General Assembly passed a resolution instructing the
Commissioner of Labor to renegotiate the appropriate number of
occupational safety and health compliance officers with OSHA. In June
1990 the State of North Carolina requested that the Assistant Secretary
approve revisions to its 1984 compliance staffing benchmark levels
which the State found to be more reflective of current occupational
safety and health needs and circumstances within the State. This
reassessment resulted in a proposal to OSHA of revised compliance
staffing benchmarks of 64 safety and 50 health compliance officers for
the State of North Carolina.
In September 1991, a catastrophic fire occurred at a poultry
processing plant in North Carolina, resulting in the reinstitution of
limited Federal concurrent jurisdiction and a special Federal
evaluation of the State's occupational safety and health operations.
Consideration of North Carolina's benchmarks revision was suspended
during this time. Significant legislative and budgetary changes were
made to the North Carolina State program and, for Fiscal Year 1995, the
State authorized compliance staffing of 64 safety and 51 health
inspectors. In late 1994, the North Carolina Department of Labor
requested that the Assistant Secretary resume consideration of State's
proposed revision of its benchmarks.
History of the Present Proceedings
On March 7, 1995, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
published notice in the Federal Register of its proposal to approve
revised compliance staffing benchmarks for North Carolina (60 FR
12488). A detailed description of the methodology and State-specific
information used to develop the revised compliance staffing levels for
North Carolina was included in the notice. In addition, OSHA submitted,
as a part of the record, detailed submissions containing both narrative
explanation and supporting data for North Carolina's proposed revised
benchmarks (Docket No. T-015A). A summary of the benchmark revision
process is set forth in the January 16, 1985 Federal Register notice
concerning the Wyoming State plan (50 FR 2491). An informational record
was established in a separate docket (Docket No. T-018) and contained
background information relevant to the benchmark issue and the current
benchmark revision process.
To assist and encourage public participation in the benchmark
revision process, a copy of North Carolina's complete record was
maintained in the OSHA Docket Office in Washington, DC. Copies of North
Carolina's record were also maintained in the OSHA Region IV Office in
Atlanta, Georgia, and in the Office of the North Carolina Department of
Labor, in Raleigh, North Carolina.
The March 7 proposal invited interested parties to submit, by April
11, 1995, written comments and views regarding whether North Carolina's
proposed revised compliance staffing benchmark levels should be
approved. Two comments were received regarding North Carolina's
proposed benchmarks.
Summary and Evaluation of Comments Received
In response to the March 7 Federal Register notice for North
Carolina, OSHA received one comment from Kae Livsey, Governmental
Affairs Manager of the American Association of Occupational Health
Nurses, Inc. (Exhibit 4-1), and one comment from Ruth Anne Smith,
President, and Susan A. Randolph, Chair for Governmental Affairs, of
the North Carolina Association of Occupational Health Nurses (Exhibit
4-2). Charles N. Jeffress, Deputy Commissioner of the North Carolina
Department of Labor, responded to the public comments (Exhibit 4-3).
Both comments recommended that the North Carolina program include
occupational health nursing positions in determining revisions to the
State's benchmark levels for compliance staffing and utilizing
occupational health nurses to fill compliance and consultation
positions.
In his response, Deputy Commissioner Jeffress agreed with the two
comments that occupational health nurses are beneficial to a ``full
service'' occupational safety and health program,'' and noted that the
North Carolina Department of Labor has a long history of employing
occupational health nurses to provide training and expert advice in
compliance investigations. Mr. Jeffress also
[[Page 28055]]
explained that North Carolina program's proposed revised compliance
staffing benchmarks apply specifically to personnel for the enforcement
of occupational safety and health standards and that although an
individual with an educational background in occupational health
nursing would be eligible to apply for consideration for these
positions, it would be inappropriate to reserve staffing positions for
individuals with a particular occupational health degree.
Decision
OSHA has carefully reviewed the record developed during the above
described proceedings. In light of all the facts presented on the
record, including the absence of any objections from interested
parties, the Assistant Secretary has determined that the revised
compliance staffing levels proposed for North Carolina meet the
requirements of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall in
providing the number of safety and health compliance officers for a
``fully effective'' enforcement program. Therefore, the revised
compliance staffing levels of 64 safety and 50 health compliance
officers for North Carolina are approved.
Effect of Decision
The approval of the revised staffing levels for North Carolina, set
forth elsewhere in this notice, establishes the requirement for a
sufficient number of adequately trained and qualified compliance
personnel as set forth in Section 18(c) of the Act and 29 CFR
1902.37(b)(1). These benchmarks are established pursuant to the 1978
Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall and define the compliance staffing
levels necessary for a ``fully effective'' program in North Carolina.
The allocation of sufficient staffing to meet the benchmarks is one of
the conditions necessary for States to receive an 18(e) determination
(final State plan approval) with its resultant relinquishment of
concurrent Federal enforcement jurisdiction.
Explanation of Changes to 29 CFR Part 1952
29 CFR 1952 contains, for each State having an approved
occupational safety and health plan, a subpart generally describing the
plan and setting forth the Federal approval status of the plan. This
notice makes several changes to Subpart I to reflect the approval of
North Carolina's revised compliance staffing benchmarks, as well as to
reflect minor editorial modifications to the structure of the Subpart.
Section 1952.393, Compliance staffing benchmarks, has been revised
to reflect the approval of the revised benchmarks for North Carolina.
In addition, the addresses of locations where the North Carolina plan
may be inspected have been updated and are found at Sec. 1952.156.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
OSHA certifies, pursuant to the Regulatory Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C.
601, et seq.), that this rulemaking will not have significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Approval of the
revised compliance staffing benchmarks for North Carolina will not
place small employers in the State under any new or different
requirements nor would any additional burden be placed upon the State
government beyond the responsibilities already assumed as part of the
approved plan.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1952
Intergovernmental relations, Law enforcement, Occupational safety
and health.
(Sec. 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29 U.S.C. 667); 29 CFR Part 1902, Secretary
of Labor's Order No. 9-83 (43 FR 35736))
Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of May 1996.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
PART 1952--[AMENDED]
Accordingly, Subpart I of 29 CFR Part 1952 is amended as follows:
Subpart I--North Carolina
1. The authority citation for Part 1952 continues to read:
Authority: Sec. 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29 U.S.C. 667); 29 CFR Part
1902, Secretary of Labor's Order No. 9-83 (43 FR 35736).
2. Section 1952.153 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1952.153 Compliance staffing benchmarks.
Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in AFL-CIO v. Marshall,
compliance staffing levels (``benchmarks'') necessary for a ``fully
effective'' enforcement program were required for each State operating
an approved State plan. In September 1984, North Carolina, in
conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially
established in 1980 and proposed revised benchmarks of 50 safety and 27
health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and
service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised
staffing requirements on January 17, 1986. In June 1990, North Carolina
reconsidered the information utilized in the initial revision of its
1980 benchmarks and determined that changes in local conditions and
improved inspection data warranted further revision of its benchmarks
to 64 safety inspectors and 50 industrial hygienists. After opportunity
for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary
approved these revised staffing requirements on June 4, 1996.
3. Section 1952.156 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1952.156 Where the plan may be inspected.
A copy of the principal documents comprising the plan may be
inspected and copied during normal business hours at the following
locations:
Office of State Programs, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Third Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N3700, Washington, DC 20210;
Office of the Regional Administrator, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 1375 Peachtree Street,
NE., Suite 587, Atlanta, Georgia 30367; and
Office of the Commissioner, North Carolina Department of Labor, 319
Chapanoke Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27603.
[FR Doc. 96-13913 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13882 Federal Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance; Determining Disability and Blindness; Extension of Expiration Date for Musculoskeletal System Listings
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28046-28047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13882]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
20 CFR Part 404
[Regulations No. 4]
RIN 0960-AE43
Federal Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance; Determining
Disability and Blindness; Extension of Expiration Date for
Musculoskeletal System Listings
AGENCY: Social Security Administration.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Social Security Administration (SSA) issues listings of
impairments to evaluate disability and blindness under the Social
Security and supplemental security income (SSI) programs. This rule
extends the expiration date for the musculoskeletal system listings. We
have made no revisions to the medical criteria in the listings; they
remain the same as they now appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
This extension will ensure that we continue to have medical evaluation
criteria in the listings to adjudicate claims for disability based on
musculoskeletal system impairments at step three of our sequential
evaluation process.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is effective June 4, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regarding this Federal Register
document--Richard M. Bresnick, Legal Assistant, Division of Regulations
and Rulings, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, MD 21235, (410) 965-1758; regarding eligibility or filing
for benefits--our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 6, 1985, we published revised
listings, including the musculoskeletal system listings (50 FR 50068),
in parts A and B of appendix 1 (Listing of Impairments) to subpart P of
part 404. We use the listings at the third step of the sequential
evaluation process to evaluate claims filed by adults and children for
benefits based on disability and blindness under the Social Security
and SSI programs. The listings describe impairments considered severe
enough to prevent a person from doing any gainful activity, or, for an
individual under age 18 applying for SSI benefits based on disability,
from functioning independently, appropriately, and effectively in an
age-appropriate manner. We use the criteria in part A mainly to
evaluate impairments of adults. We use the criteria in part B first to
evaluate impairments of individuals under age 18. If those criteria do
not apply, we may use the criteria in part A.
When we published the revised listings in 1985, we indicated that
medical advances in disability evaluation and treatment and program
experience would require that the listings be periodically reviewed and
updated. Accordingly, we established a date of December 6, 1990, for
the musculoskeletal system listings in part A, and December 6, 1993,
for the musculoskeletal system listings in part B, on which the
listings would no longer be effective unless extended by the Secretary
of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) or revised and promulgated
again. Under section 102 of the Social Security Independence and
Program Improvements Act of 1994, Public Law 103-296, this rulemaking
authority was transferred from the Secretary to the Commissioner of
Social Security (the Commissioner).
Subsequently, we issued a final rule on December 12, 1990 (55 FR
51100), extending the expiration date of the musculoskeletal system
listings in part A to June 6, 1992, and again on June 5, 1992 (57 FR
23946), extending that expiration date to December 6, 1993. Thereafter,
on December 6, 1993 (58 FR 64121), the expiration date of the
musculoskeletal system listings in both parts A and B was extended, as
were the
[[Page 28047]]
expiration dates for several other body system listings. That rule
provided that the musculoskeletal system listings would no longer be
effective on June 6, 1996.
Also, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on
December 21, 1993 (58 FR 67574) that included proposed revisions to
these listings. We will publish any changes to the listings based on
that NPRM in a subsequent final rule.
In this final regulation, we are extending for one year, to June 6,
1997, the date on which the musculoskeletal system listings will no
longer be effective. We believe that the requirements in these listings
are still valid for our program purposes. Specifically, if we find that
an individual has an impairment that meets the statutory duration
requirement and also meets or is equivalent in severity to an
impairment in the listings, we will find that the individual is
disabled without completing the remaining steps of the sequential
evaluation process. We do not use the listings to find that an
individual is not disabled. Individuals whose impairments do not meet
or equal the criteria of the listings receive individualized
assessments at the subsequent steps of the sequential evaluation
process.
Regulatory Procedures
Pursuant to section 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.
902(a)(5), as amended by section 102 of Public Law 103-296, SSA follows
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking procedures specified
in 5 U.S.C. 553 in the development of its regulations. The APA provides
exceptions to its notice and public comment procedures when an agency
finds there is good cause for dispensing with such procedures on the
basis that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest. We have determined that, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B),
good cause exists for dispensing with the notice and public comment
procedures in this case. Good cause exists because this regulation only
extends the date on which the musculoskeletal system listings will no
longer be effective. It makes no substantive changes to the listings.
The current regulations expressly provide that the listings may be
extended, as well as revised and promulgated again. Therefore,
opportunity for prior comment is unnecessary, and we are issuing this
regulation as a final rule.
In addition, we find good cause for dispensing with the 30-day
delay in the effective date of a substantive rule, provided for by 5
U.S.C. 553(d). As explained above, we are not making any substantive
changes in the listings. However, without an extension of the
expiration date for the musculoskeletal system listings, we will lack
regulatory guidelines for assessing musculoskeletal system impairments
at the third step of the sequential evaluation processes after the
current expiration date of the listings. In order to ensure that we
continue to have regulatory criteria for assessing these impairments
under the listings, we find that it is in the public interest to make
this rule effective upon publication.
Executive Order 12866
We have consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
and determined that this rule does not meet the criteria for a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Thus, it was
not subject to OMB review.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
We certify that this regulation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a
regulatory flexibility analysis as provided in Public Law 96-354, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, is not required.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This regulation imposes no reporting/recordkeeping requirements
necessitating clearance by OMB.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001, Social
Security-Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security-Retirement
Insurance; 96.004, Social Security-Survivors Insurance; 96.006,
Supplemental Security Income)
List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 404
Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Disability benefits,
Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Social Security.
Dated: May 20, 1996.
Shirley S. Chater,
Commissioner of Social Security.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 404, subpart P,
chapter III of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as set forth below.
PART 404--FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE
(1950- )
Subpart P--[Amended]
1. The authority citation for subpart P of part 404 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 202, 205(a), (b), and (d)-(h), 216(i), 221(a)
and (i), 222(c), 223, 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 402, 405(a), (b), and (d)-(h), 416(i), 421(a) and (i),
422(c), 423, 425, and 902(a)(5)).
2. Appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 is amended by revising item
2 of the introductory text before part A to read as follows:
Appendix 1 to Subpart P--Listing of Impairments
* * * * *
2. Musculoskeletal System (1.00 and 101.00): June 6, 1997.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-13882 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4190-29-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13871 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Revocation of Determination of Attainment of Ozone Standard by the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area and Reinstatement of Applicability of Certain Reasonable Further Progress and Attainment Demonstration Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28061-28067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13871]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[PA084-4018; FRL-5511-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Revocation of Determination of Attainment
of Ozone Standard by the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Ozone Nonattainment
Area and Reinstatement of Applicability of Certain Reasonable Further
Progress and Attainment Demonstration Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is providing notification of its determination that the
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley ozone nonattainment area is no longer
attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone,
based on monitored violations of the standard during the 1995 ozone
season. EPA is also reinstating the applicability of certain reasonable
further progress (RFP) and attainment demonstration requirements, along
with certain other requirements, of Part D of Title I of the Clean Air
Act for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley ozone nonattainment area because
the area is no longer in attainment for ozone.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on August 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Air, Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19107 and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection,
Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria A. Pino, (215) 566-2181, at the
EPA Region III office, or at [email protected] via e-mail.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a policy memorandum dated May 10, 1995,
from John Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, to the Regional Air Division Directors, entitled
``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' EPA stated that it is reasonable to
interpret provisions regarding reasonable further progress (RFP) and
attainment demonstrations, along with certain other related provisions,
so as not to require certain SIP submissions if an ozone nonattainment
area subject to those requirements is monitoring attainment of the
ozone standard.
Based on this memo, on July 19, 1995, EPA published a final
determination (60 FR 37015) that the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley and
Reading ozone nonattainment areas had attained the ozone standard and
that the SIP requirements for reasonable further progress, (namely the
15% plans and attainment demonstrations required under section
182(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, and the contingency measures required
under section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act) no longer applied so long
as these areas did not violate the ozone standard. The notice also
stated that the sanctions clocks started on January 18, 1994, for these
areas for failure to submit the RFP requirements were halted. The
effective date of the final determination occurred one day after the
sanction clocks expired and these areas were, in fact, under the offset
sanction at the time of EPA's final determination. However, the
sanctions were lifted as a result of EPA's final determination for the
same reason that the final determination would have halted the
sanctions clocks.
EPA has reviewed the 1995 ambient air quality data (consistent with
the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in AIRS) for
the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley ozone nonattainment area (the Pittsburgh
area), and determined that the area is no longer in attainment. During
the 1995 ozone season 17 exceedances of the standard were recorded, and
two monitors in the Pittsburgh area recorded violations of the ozone
NAAQS. The current design value for the Pittsburgh area, computed using
the ozone monitoring data for 1993 through 1995, is 133 parts per
billion (ppb). The average annual number of expected exceedances is 8.2
for that same time period. An area is considered in nonattainment when
the average annual number of expected exceedances is greater than 1.0.
A more detailed summary of the ozone monitoring data for the area is
provided in the Technical Support Document for this notice.
Other specific details of the attainment determination revocation
and the reinstatement of the 15% plan, attainment demonstration, and
contingency measures requirements for the Pittsburgh area, and the
rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the February 12,
1996 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) (61 FR 5360) and will not be
restated here. Both positive and adverse public comments were received
on the NPR.
During the public comment period EPA received one comment letter in
favor of the proposal, and two letters that contained adverse comments.
Following meetings with the representatives of the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection, EPA subsequently received
another letter from one of the commenters, the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, setting forth a proposed schedule of milestones for
meeting the attainment demonstration requirement. The following is a
summary of the adverse comments received on the NPR, and EPA's response
to those comments.
Comment #1: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania opposed EPA's
proposed reinstatement of the requirements of sections 182(b)(1) and
172(c)(9) on August 15, 1996. According to the Commonwealth, the August
15, 1996 date did not allow the state enough time to develop and adopt
the necessary regulations and make the required submissions. The
Commonwealth contended that the August 15, 1996 date was not consistent
with EPA's own policy of providing a reasonable time taking into
account the pertinent circumstances, did not allow sufficient time for
the Southwestern Pennsylvania Ozone Stakeholders process (established
by the Commonwealth) to be completed, was inconsistent with the time
frame for inspection and maintenance (I/M) program submissions
established by the National Highway Systems Designation Act (NHSDA) of
1995, and did not provide sufficient time for the state rulemaking
process to occur. Subsequently, following meetings between EPA and the
state, in a letter dated May 17, 1996, the Commonwealth proposed a
schedule of milestones for submissions from the Commonwealth to EPA to
comply with the attainment demonstration requirement for the Pittsburgh
area. That schedule includes milestone dates beginning on August 15,
1996, and ending on December 31, 1997.
Response: First, with respect to the proposed August 15, 1996 date
for the reinstatement of the 15% plan and section 172(c)(9) contingency
measures requirements, for the reasons stated in the proposal EPA
continues to believe
[[Page 28062]]
that date is reasonable and provides the state with an adequate time to
prepare and adopt a SIP revision to comply with those requirements. The
reasonableness of that date is conclusively demonstrated by the fact
that the Commonwealth submitted to EPA a 15% plan, and the contingency
measures for the Pittsburgh area, as a SIP revision, on March 22, 1996.
EPA notes that this submittal also demonstrates that there is no
inconsistency between the submittal date for an interim I/M program
under the NHSDA provisions (March 27, 1996), and the August 15, 1996
date for the reinstatement of the requirements as the state is relying
in its 15% plan on such an I/M program, which it submitted to EPA on
March 22, 1996. EPA worked with the Commonwealth to develop this 15%
plan, and provided comments on the plan for the public record.
Therefore, EPA is adopting in this final action the proposed August 15,
1996 date for the reinstatement of the 15% plan and contingency
measures requirements.
Second, with respect to the date for the reinstatement of the
attainment demonstration requirement of section 182(b)(1)(A) of the
CAA, EPA believes that the comments received indicate that it is
appropriate for EPA to modify its proposal to allow additional time for
the submission of all of the aspects or elements of an attainment
demonstration. EPA believes that there is a range of time periods that
would satisfy the criteria of the May 10, 1995 policy regarding a
reasonable time for the reinstatement of the suspended requirements and
that it is also permissible to establish a schedule of milestones
requiring the submission of various elements of an attainment
demonstration culminating with the submission of fully-adopted,
enforceable regulations necessary to implement control measures
necessary to attain the ozone standard. While EPA does not agree with
all of the comments made by the Commonwealth, EPA believes that the
schedule proposed by the Commonwealth in the letter of May 17, 1996 is
a reasonable one in light of the particular circumstances pertinent to
the submission of an attainment demonstration for the Pittsburgh-Beaver
Valley ozone nonattainment area.
Under that schedule, the attainment demonstration would be split
into a number of elements, the first being due to be submitted to EPA
on August 15, 1996, EPA's original proposed date for the reinstatement
of the attainment demonstration requirement. That first element, the
photochemical oxidant modeling demonstration that identifies VOC and
NOX reduction levels necessary for attainment of the ozone NAAQS
in the area and a list of available control strategies, is the
necessary first step in the process of putting together a complete
attainment demonstration for the Pittsburgh area. EPA believes that the
August 15, 1996 date is a reasonable date for this first element as it
will provide adequate time for the completion of the modeling efforts
but ensure that the Commonwealth is moving forward expeditiously
towards the submission of a full attainment demonstration.
Under the schedule, the second element, an official SIP revision
(for which the Commonwealth has completed the public notice and hearing
process) containing a photochemical oxidant modeling demonstration and
a list of available control strategies must be submitted by the
Commonwealth to EPA by October 1, 1996. This will provide an adequate
opportunity for public input on these matters through a notice and
comment process at the state level and through the Southwestern
Pennsylvania Ozone Stakeholders process established by the state for
addressing Pittsburgh's ozone problems, while still ensuring that these
issues will be addressed in an expeditious manner.
The third element under the schedule is a SIP submission from the
Commonwealth to EPA that must be made by April 1, 1997. This submission
must consist of any emission reduction strategies selected by the
Commonwealth for the Pittsburgh area for which new regulations are not
required and an enforceable commitment, which has undergone public
notice and hearing, to submit to EPA by December 31, 1997, as final,
fully-adopted and enforceable regulations any emission reduction
strategies selected by the Commonwealth for the Pittsburgh area for
which new regulations are required. This will ensure that any selected
strategies that do not require new regulations are submitted to EPA
prior to the 1997 ozone season for incorporation in the SIP and that
any selected strategies for which new regulations are required will be
submitted in an expeditious time frame, but one that will provide
necessary additional time for state rulemaking activities. Submission
of those regulations by December 31, 1997, should provide adequate lead
time for the implementation of such regulations and EPA action
regarding those regulations prior to the 1998 ozone season.
The final element under the schedule is the December 31, 1997 date
for the submission of final, fully-adopted and enforceable regulations
to implement all selected control strategies for which new regulations
are necessary.
EPA believes that this schedule represents a reasonable
accommodation between the need for expeditious compliance with the
reinstated attainment demonstration requirement and the time for the
state regulatory process, the technical work regarding the underlying
modeling, and allowing for public input regarding these efforts through
the state notice and comment process and the Commonwealth's stakeholder
process, which is scheduled for completion by the end of 1996. EPA
notes, however, that the obligations regarding submittals to EPA
established under this milestone schedule exist regardless of the
outcome of the stakeholder process.
EPA rejects the contention of the commenter that the dates for the
reinstatement of the suspended requirements were based on a commitment
to establish such dates in a settlement agreement to settle pending
litigation. No settlement agreement regarding the proposed dates had
been entered into at the time of the proposal and the fact that EPA is
establishing the dates in this final action based on a careful
evaluation of all circumstances and comments on the proposal, including
the Commonwealth's letter of May 17, 1996, demonstrates that EPA had
not committed itself to the August 15, 1996 date at the time of the
proposal.
The sanctions consequences of this schedule are discussed below in
the CONCLUSIONS section of this notice.
Comment #2: ``Transport of ozone from outside Pennsylvania
into the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area was not considered.''
Response: While Pennsylvania has made great strides in improving
the air quality in the Pittsburgh area, ozone remains a problem. EPA
believes that the Pittsburgh area generates substantial emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX),
which contribute significantly to the nonattainment problem there. This
was demonstrated in 1995, when exceedances were recorded in Pittsburgh,
and ozone concentrations at the border and in all other western and
central Pennsylvania areas were below the standard. The Commonwealth
has performed no modeling analyses to demonstrate that the ozone
problem in the Pittsburgh area is caused by transport from upwind
sources. An adequate technical
[[Page 28063]]
demonstration, including emissions data and a modeling analysis, must
be provided to support any claim of transport-dominated nonattainment.
Comment #3: ``The 1995 ozone season data was not officially
submitted to EPA until November 1995.''
Response: While the Commonwealth did not officially submit the data
to EPA until November 1995, the Commonwealth was aware of the
violations much sooner. Although the data had to go through official
quality assurance procedures, the Commonwealth had a strong indication
that the area had violated the ozone NAAQS before November 1995. In
fact, in an October 11, 1995 letter to EPA, Governor Ridge acknowledged
the violations of the ozone NAAQS that occurred in the Pittsburgh area
during the summer of 1995.
Comment #4: ``The 1995 ozone season area data was unexpected
and unusual in comparison to recent data.''
Response: As shown in the tables below, the area was not without
exceedances in recent years. From 1987 to 1995, the number of
exceedances varied from year to year with no discernable pattern. This
variation is due to year-to-year variations in emissions and
meteorological conditions.
Pittsburgh Area: Number of Ozone Exceedances: 1987-1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10..... 41 5 0 2 0 1 4 17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the area has not adequately reduced its VOC and NOX
emissions, it is subject to ozone exceedances whenever meteorological
conditions are conducive to ozone formation. One of the goals of the
Clean Air Act is to minimize the health risks that people encounter.
Since meteorological conditions cannot be controlled, the way to reduce
health risks due to ozone in the Pittsburgh area is to reduce the
anthropogenic emissions of VOC and NOX, both of which are
considered precursor pollutants. Furthermore, many VOCs are listed as
hazardous air pollutants under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, and
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is individually regulated by EPA because of
its health and welfare effects. As a result, the reduction of VOC and
NOX emissions will reduce the health risks that are associated
with exposure to VOC and NOX, as well as reducing the health risks
due to elevated ozone levels.
Finally, the comment letter referred to comments that this same
commenter made on another, related action, EPA's February 7, 1996
proposed disapproval of Pennsylvania's ozone redesignation request for
the Pittsburgh area (61 FR 4598). On May 1, 1996, EPA responded to
those comments in the final rule disapproving Pennsylvania's
redesignation request for the Pittsburgh area (61 FR 19193). Those
comments and EPA's responses will not be restated here but are
incorporated by reference to the extent relevant to this action.
The second commenter's position is that EPA's July 19, 1995 waiver
of the 15% plan and attainment demonstration requirements for the
Pittsburgh area was unlawful because it relieved moderate ozone
nonattainment areas from requirements established for those areas in
sections 172, 176, 179, 181, and 182 of the Clean Air Act.
Comment #1: ``An area cannot be removed from nonattainment
status except by the redesignation process under section 107(d)(3),
which provides that the redesignation cannot occur unless the area not
only attained the standard but also met several other prerequisites.
Because the July 19 decision did not purport to find--and had no basis
for finding--that these other prerequisites had been met, and did not
purport to relieve the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley area of its
nonattainment status, that decision could not lawfully exempt the area
from the requirements imposed by sections 172, 176, 179, 181, and
182.''
Response: The rationale and justification for EPA's July 19, 1995
action were thoroughly explained in that rulemaking and EPA
incorporates by reference the explanations provided therein as to the
lawfulness of EPA's action. EPA also incorporates by reference the
discussions of the rationales and bases for such actions contained in
other notices regarding similar actions taken with respect to other
ozone nonattainment areas--Salt Lake City, Utah (60 FR 36723, July 18,
1995), Muskegon and Grand Rapids, Michigan (60 FR 37366, July 20,
1995), and Cleveland, Ohio (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996). EPA also notes
that it disapproved the Commonwealth's November 13, 1993 redesignation
request for the Pittsburgh area on May 1, 1996 (61 FR 19193), and that
the issue of whether the July 19, 1995 action had any impact on EPA's
evaluation of the redesignation request has now been rendered moot.
Comment #2: The proposal ``makes no mention of either the
conformity requirements of section 176(c) or the federal implementation
plan requirements of section 110(c).'' The same ozone NAAQS violations
that compel reimposition of the section 182(b)(1) and 172(c)(9)
requirements also compel imposition of the conformity and federal
implementation plan (FIP) requirements as well--and on the same
schedule.
Response: With respect to the conformity requirements, EPA believes
that they are not affected by this action. Rather, the conformity
requirements are as they were explained in the May 1, 1996 disapproval
of the Pittsburgh redesignation request and maintenance plan (61 FR
19193): ``When the final disapproval of the maintenance plan is
effective, the Pittsburgh area will no longer be able to demonstrate
conformity to the submitted maintenance plan pursuant to the
transportation conformity requirements in 40 CFR 93.128(I). Since the
submitted maintenance plan budget will no longer apply for
transportation conformity purposes, the build/no-build and less-than-90
tests will apply pursuant to 40 CFR 93.122. In addition, the
Commonwealth submitted a 15% rate-of-progress plan (15% plan) on March
22, 1996. Ninety days after this submittal date, the emissions budget
contained in this 15% plan will apply for conformity purposes pursuant
to 40 CFR 93.118 and 93.128(a)(1)(ii), as well as the build/no-build
test under 40 CFR 93.122.''
With respect to the FIP clock, EPA believes that the FIP clock is
analogous to the sanctions clock and, therefore, would be reinstated in
the same manner as the sanctions clock. Thus, the FIP clock, like the
sanctions clock, would resume as to the particular submission at issue,
with one day less than six months to run (the amount of time left on
the FIP clock at the time of the July 19, 1995 determination of
attainment).
For example, with respect to the 15% plan and contingency measure
requirements that are being reinstated as of August 15, 1996, the FIP
clock would
[[Page 28064]]
be reinstated at that time, with one day less than six months to run.
With respect to the elements of the attainment demonstration, the FIP
clock would resume as to each element two weeks after the due date for
each element (the date on which the sanctions would be reinstated if
the submission were not made), with one day less than six months to
run.
Comment #3: Since it is the commenter's position that the
requirements never ceased being applicable, the commenter agreed that
August 15, 1996 is ``a more than reasonable time from the Commonwealth
to meet those requirements.'' The commenter also stated that, ``Further
delay in these already long-overdue public health measures must not be
tolerated.''
Response: As stated above, EPA believed that August 15, 1996
provided the Commonwealth with a reasonable amount of time to develop
and submit a 15% plan, contingency measures, and an attainment
demonstration. However, for the reasons set out in this notice, EPA
believes that, considering the Commonwealth's particular circumstances
(including its regulatory adoption process and the Southwestern
Pennsylvania Ozone Stakeholders process) the Commonwealth needs time
beyond August 15, 1996 to complete an attainment demonstration for the
Pittsburgh area.
Conclusions
EPA has considered all the comments received, and is committed to
working with the Commonwealth to resolve the Pittsburgh area's ozone
problem. Towards that end, EPA is a member of the Southwestern
Pennsylvania Ozone Stakeholders Group and is participating in the
Stakeholders process to help identify appropriate control measures,
agreeable to all affected parties, that will bring the area into
attainment for ozone as quickly as possible, without causing an undue
economic burden to the citizens of the area.
Furthermore, EPA still believes that the August 15, 1996 date
provides the Commonwealth a reasonable amount of time to develop a 15%
plan and the contingency measures. As noted above, the Commonwealth
submitted to EPA a 15% plan, and the contingency measures, as an
official SIP revision on March 22, 1996. EPA worked with the
Commonwealth to develop this 15% plan and the contingency measures, and
provided comments on the plan for the public record.
Taking the individual circumstances the Commonwealth faces in
addressing its outstanding SIP requirements, including the
Commonwealth's rule adoption process and the Southwestern Pennsylvania
Ozone Stakeholders process, EPA has determined that it is reasonable to
allow more time than proposed for the submission of a full attainment
demonstration SIP.
EPA is still revoking the attainment determination for the
Pittsburgh area, and reinstating the RFP and attainment demonstration
requirements as of the effective date of this action. However, in lieu
of requiring the Commonwealth to submit the attainment determination
for the Pittsburgh area as a formal SIP revision by August 15, 1996,
EPA is establishing the following milestones.
(1) By August 15, 1996, the Commonwealth must submit to EPA, and
make available for public comment as a proposed SIP submission,
complete photochemical oxidant modeling for the Pittsburgh area which
identifies the VOC and NOx reductions levels necessary for attainment,
and a list of available control strategies.
(2) By October 1, 1996, the Commonwealth must submit to EPA a SIP
revision containing a photochemical oxidant modeling demonstration and
a list of available control strategies.
(3) By April 1, 1997, the Commonwealth must submit to EPA a full
SIP revision for those emission reduction strategies selected by the
Commonwealth for the Pittsburgh area for which new regulations are not
required.
(4) By April 1, 1997, the Commonwealth must submit to EPA a
committal SIP revision for those emission reduction strategies selected
by the Commonwealth for the Pittsburgh area that require new
regulations.
(5) By December 31, 1997, the Commonwealth must submit to EPA as a
SIP revision adopted final fully enforceable regulations encompassing
the emission reduction strategies contained in the committal SIP.
Unless the Commonwealth makes the required submittal to EPA, the
sanctions and sanction clocks halted by the July 19, 1995 action
suspending the attainment demonstration requirements at issue will be
reinstated, as to each of the submittals included in this milestone
schedule, two weeks after the date set for each of the submittals by
the Commonwealth to EPA. If the Commonwealth fails to make a submission
by the required date, the offset sanction would go back into effect two
weeks after the relevant milestone date, and the highway sanction clock
would be reinstated at that time where it was halted on July 19, 1995
(i.e., with approximately 6 months remaining). Sanctions or sanctions
clocks would be stopped if the Commonwealth makes the relevant overdue
submittal, if EPA affirmatively determines that the actual material
submitted by the Commonwealth contains the information necessary to
enable EPA to determine whether the Commonwealth's submission complies
with the pertinent milestone requirement. This determination would not
be a determination regarding the merits of the submission, but only a
determination as to whether it contains the necessary elements for EPA
to proceed to evaluate its merits. EPA shall make the determination as
to whether the submittal contains the necessary information within two
weeks of the actual submission date by the Commonwealth. EPA's
determination will be issued, in writing, in a letter to the Secretary
of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and will be
publicly available.
In the event the Commonwealth makes a required submittal by the
pertinent milestone date, EPA shall, within two weeks of the milestone
date, make a determination, in writing, as to whether the actual
material submitted by the Commonwealth contains the information
necessary to enable EPA to determine whether the Commonwealth's
submission complies with the pertinent milestone requirement. If EPA
determines that the material submitted to EPA by the Commonwealth fails
to satisfy this minimum criterion, the offset sanction would be
reinstated upon that determination by EPA and the highway sanction
clock would be reinstated at that time where it was halted on July 19,
1995 (i.e., with approximately 6 months remaining). Sanctions or
sanctions clocks would be stopped if the Commonwealth subsequently
makes a submittal to cure the deficiencies identified by EPA, and if
EPA affirmatively determines in writing that the material submitted by
the Commonwealth cures the identified deficiencies. Again, EPA shall
make the determination as to the adequacy of the submittal within two
weeks of the date of the actual submittal to EPA. Each of the
determinations referenced in this paragraph will be made, in writing,
in a letter to the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection and made publicly available.
In those instances where EPA determines that the Commonwealth's
submittal does not contain the information necessary to enable EPA to
determine whether the Commonwealth's submission complies with the
pertinent milestone
[[Page 28065]]
requirement, EPA's letter so informing the Commonwealth will articulate
the basis for EPA's determination, specify the remedy, and identify the
actions necessary by the Commonwealth to remedy its submission to
satisfy the relevant milestone.
Although this departs from the normal approach to the cessation of
a sanctions clock or the lifting of sanctions that have already been
imposed, EPA believes that the above-described approach is justified in
the present unique circumstances. With this action, EPA is establishing
a new submission schedule for requirements that had been suspended by
the July 19, 1995 action taken pursuant to the May 10, 1995 policy.
Thus, in this case, the underlying requirements that had led to the
starting of sanctions clocks and the actual imposition of offset
sanctions for one day have been suspended since July 19, 1995. EPA
believes it is appropriate and justifiable to establish the previously-
described mechanism in the context of carrying out the terms of the
July 19, 1995 action in the event of a revocation of that determination
of attainment due to subsequent violations, and the establishment of a
milestone schedule that provides the state with a reasonable time to
comply with the reinstated requirements through the submission of
individual elements of those requirements over a period of time. That
mechanism provides that in the case where the Commonwealth makes a
submission to comply with the schedule herein established, sanctions
and sanctions clocks would not be reinstated unless EPA determines that
the submission was deficient following the process that was described
previously.
To ensure that such determinations are made by EPA expeditiously,
EPA is taking the unusual step of committing to make such
determinations within two weeks of a submission from the Commonwealth.
This will assure that sanctions are not either delayed or prolonged due
to inaction on the part of EPA. Thus, EPA has also committed to act
within two weeks on a submission from the Commonwealth made to cure a
previously-identified deficiency. This will assure that sanctions and
sanctions clocks reinstated due to an identified deficiency in a
submission will be turned off expeditiously in the event the
Commonwealth cures that deficiency. EPA views these commitments to act
within two weeks, to determine whether a submission contains the
information necessary to enable EPA to determine whether the
Commonwealth's submission complies with the milestone requirements, as
establishing an enforceable commitment or duty to make those
determinations. As noted earlier, these determinations are not
determinations on the merits of the individual submissions, but are
only determinations regarding whether the contents of the submission
are adequate for EPA to evaluate the merits of the submission. EPA also
emphasizes that, in the event the Commonwealth makes no submission at
all by the milestone date in the schedule, sanctions and sanctions
clocks would be reinstated automatically, without further action on the
part of EPA and would only be stopped upon an affirmative determination
by EPA regarding the adequacy of the submission.
As stated previously, in those instances where EPA determines that
the Commonwealth's submittal does not contain the information necessary
to enable EPA to determine whether the Commonwealth's submission
complies with the pertinent milestone requirement, EPA's letter so
informing the Commonwealth will articulate the basis for EPA's
determination, specify the remedy, and identify the actions necessary
by the Commonwealth to remedy its submission to satisfy the relevant
milestone.
EPA believes that these commitments are warranted under the special
circumstances presented by this situation, including the establishment
by EPA of a phased schedule for the submission of specified elements of
a full attainment demonstration upon the revocation of a determination
of attainment that had suspended the underlying requirements and the
fact that the Commonwealth has publicly committed to support this
schedule in a letter to the rulemaking docket. EPA also notes that due
to the fact that the offset sanctions had already been imposed in July
of 1995, there is no safety margin upon the reinstatement of the
suspended requirements, i.e., the sanction would be immediately
reimposed upon the reinstatement of the requirements. Thus, EPA
believes it is justifiable for it to establish a mechanism that, in the
event the Commonwealth makes a submission to comply with the milestone
schedule, will require EPA to act in an expeditious manner before the
sanctions would be reinstated.
With respect to the FIP clock, EPA believes that the FIP clock is
analogous to the sanctions clock and, therefore, would be reinstated in
the same manner as the sanctions clock. Thus, the FIP clock, like the
sanctions clock, would resume as to the particular submission at issue
with one day less than six months to run (the amount of time left on
the FIP clock at the time of the July 19, 1995 determination of
attainment).
Final Action
Due to the monitored violations of the ozone standard, EPA has
determined that the air quality in the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
moderate ozone nonattainment area is no longer attaining the ozone
standard. As a consequence, EPA is reinstating the requirements of
section 182(b)(1) concerning the submission of the 15% RFP plan and
ozone attainment demonstration and the requirements of section
172(c)(9) concerning contingency measures. In order to provide a
reasonable time for the Commonwealth to develop and submit these SIP
elements, EPA is revoking the determination of attainment and
reinstating these SIP requirements, effective beginning August 15,
1996.
EPA believes that, under the circumstances presented here, setting
an effective date of August 15, 1996 would provide the Commonwealth a
reasonable amount of time to submit a 15% plan and related contingency
measures. The Commonwealth submitted a 15% plan, and the contingency
measures, on March 22, 1996.
Furthermore, for the reasons set forth above, the following
schedule is reasonable for the development and adoption of an
attainment demonstration.
(1) By August 15, 1996, the Commonwealth must submit to EPA, and
make available for public comment as a proposed SIP submission,
complete photochemical oxidant modeling for the Pittsburgh area which
identifies the VOC and NOx reductions levels necessary for
attainment, and a list of available control strategies.
(2) By October 1, 1996, the Commonwealth must submit to EPA a SIP
revision containing a photochemical oxidant modeling demonstration and
a list of available control strategies.
(3) By April 1, 1997, the Commonwealth must submit to EPA a full
SIP revision for those emission reduction strategies selected by the
Commonwealth for the Pittsburgh area for which new regulations are not
required.
(4) By April 1, 1997, the Commonwealth must submit to EPA a
committal SIP revision for those emission reduction strategies selected
by the Commonwealth for the Pittsburgh area that require new
regulations.
(5) By December 31, 1997, the Commonwealth must submit to EPA as a
SIP revision adopted final fully enforceable regulations encompassing
[[Page 28066]]
the emission reduction strategies contained in the committal SIP.
Sanctions, sanction clocks, and FIP clocks will be reinstated as
discussed in this notice.
EPA's July 19, 1995, final determination put the Commonwealth on
notice that these requirements would be reinstated if a violation
occurred. Since the Commonwealth has been aware of the violations and
their consequences since last summer, EPA believes that this schedule
constitutes sufficient time for the Commonwealth to prepare to meet the
reactivated requirements. Sanctions will not be imposed if the
Commonwealth submits an attainment demonstration for the Pittsburgh-
Beaver Valley nonattainment area that EPA does not find deficient in
accordance with the schedule and process set out above. As discussed
above, the situation as to conformity is not changed by this rulemaking
action and is as it was explained in the May 1, 1995 final action
disapproving the redesignation request for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
ozone nonattainment area.
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that this action does not include a Federal
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. This Federal action reinstates temporarily suspended
requirements in accordance with the terms of the July 19, 1995 action
that suspended them. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.
As described in the NPR, EPA has determined that this action will
not affect a substantial number of small entities. EPA's action does
not create any new requirements but reinstates previously applicable
requirements that had temporarily been suspended.
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action regarding the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley
ozone nonattainment area must be filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit by (Insert date 60 days from date
of publication). Filing a petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this
rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time
within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: May 21, 1996.
W. Michael McCabe,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
Chapter I, title 40, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart NN--Pennsylvania
2. Section 52.2037 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2037 Control Strategy: Carbon Monoxide and Ozone .
* * * * *
(b)(1)(i) Determination--EPA has made a determination, effective
August 15, 1996, that the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley ozone nonattainment
area (the Pittsburgh area) is no longer in attainment of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone due to monitored violations of
the standard. Therefore, effective August 15, 1996, EPA is revoking the
determination of attainment for the area made July 19, 1995, and is
reinstating the reasonable further progress and attainment
demonstration requirements of section 182(b)(1) and contingency measure
requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act beginning on
August 15, 1996. With regard to the attainment demonstration
requirements, EPA has determined that the following schedule is
reasonable for the development, adoption, and submittal of an
attainment demonstration by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the
Commonwealth).
(A) By August 15, 1996, the Commonwealth must submit to EPA, and
make available for public comment as a proposed SIP submission,
complete photochemical oxidant modeling for the Pittsburgh area which
identifies the VOC and NOX reductions levels necessary for
attainment, and a list of available control strategies.
(B) By October 1, 1996, the Commonwealth must submit to EPA a SIP
revision containing a photochemical oxidant modeling demonstration and
a list of available control strategies.
(C) By April 1, 1997, the Commonwealth must submit to EPA a full
SIP revision for those emission reduction strategies selected by the
Commonwealth for the Pittsburgh area for which new regulations are not
required.
(D) By April 1, 1997, the Commonwealth must submit to EPA a
committal SIP revision for those emission reduction strategies selected
by the Commonwealth for the Pittsburgh area that require new
regulations.
(E) By December 31, 1997, the Commonwealth must submit to EPA as a
SIP revision adopted final fully enforceable regulations encompassing
the emission reduction strategies contained in the committal SIP.
(ii) Unless the Commonwealth makes the required submittal to EPA,
the sanctions and sanction clocks halted by the July 19, 1995 action
suspending the attainment demonstration requirements at issue will be
reinstated, as to each of the submittals included in this milestone
schedule, two weeks after the date set for each of the submittals by
the Commonwealth to EPA. If the Commonwealth fails to make a submission
by the required date, the offset sanction would go back into effect two
weeks after the relevant milestone date, and the highway sanction clock
would be reinstated at that time where it was halted on July 19, 1995
(i.e., with approximately 6 months remaining). Sanctions or sanctions
clocks would be stopped if the Commonwealth makes
[[Page 28067]]
the relevant overdue submittal, if EPA affirmatively determines in
writing that the actual material submitted by the Commonwealth contains
the information necessary to enable EPA to determine whether the
Commonwealth's submission complies with the pertinent milestone
requirement. EPA shall make the determination, in writing, as to
whether the submittal contains the necessary information within two
weeks of the actual submission date by the Commonwealth. In the event
the Commonwealth makes a required submittal by the pertinent milestone
date, EPA shall, within two weeks of the milestone date, make a
determination, in writing, as to whether the actual material submitted
by the Commonwealth contains the information necessary to enable EPA to
determine whether the Commonwealth's submission complies with the
pertinent milestone requirement. If EPA determines that the material
submitted to EPA by the Commonwealth fails to satisfy this minimum
criterion, the offset sanction would be reinstated upon that
determination by EPA and the highway sanction clock would be reinstated
at that time where it was halted on July 19, 1995 (i.e., with
approximately 6 months remaining). Sanctions or sanctions clocks would
be stopped if the Commonwealth subsequently makes a submittal to cure
the deficiencies identified by EPA, and if EPA affirmatively determines
in writing that the material submitted by the Commonwealth cures the
identified deficiencies. EPA shall make the determination as to the
adequacy of the submittal within two weeks of the date of the actual
submittal to EPA. Each of the determinations referred to in this
subparagraph shall be made in writing, in a letter to the Secretary of
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and made
publicly available. In those instances where EPA determines that the
Commonwealth's submittal does not contain the information necessary to
enable EPA to determine whether the Commonwealth's submission complies
with the pertinent milestone requirement, EPA's letter so informing the
Commonwealth will articulate the basis for EPA's determination, specify
the remedy, and identify the actions necessary by the Commonwealth to
remedy its submission to satisfy the relevant milestone. With respect
to the 15 percent plan and contingency measure requirements that are
being reinstated as of August 15, 1996, the FIP clock will be
reinstated at that time, with one day less than six months to run. With
respect to the elements of the attainment demonstration, the FIP clock
will resume as to each element (the date on which the sanctions would
be reinstated if the submissions were not made), with one day less than
six months to run.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-13871 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13859 Safety Zone: Empire State Regatta, Albany, New York
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28055-28057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13859]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD01-96-023]
RIN 2115-AA97
Safety Zone: Empire State Regatta, Albany, New York
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Temporary final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
the Empire State Regatta on June 7, 1996, from 12:01 p.m. until 3 p.m.,
and on June 8, 1996, from 6 a.m. until 6 p.m. This safety zone will
temporarily close the Hudson River at Albany, New York, from the
Patroon Island Bridge to the Dunn Memorial Bridge. This safety zone is
necessary to protect the maritime public from the hazards associated
with crew shells racing in lanes and having limited maneuverability
while underway.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is effective from 12:01 p.m. to 3 p.m.
on
[[Page 28056]]
Friday, June 7, 1996, and from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday, June 8,
1996, unless extended or terminated sooner by the Captain of the Port
New York.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Commander R. Trabocchi,
Chief, Coordination and Analysis Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Activities
New York (212) 668-7906.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory History
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NRPM)
was not published for this regulation. Good cause exists for not
publishing an NPRM and for making this regulation effective less than
30 days after Federal Register publication. Due to the date complete
information regarding this event was received, there was insufficient
time to draft and publish an NPRM. Any delay encountered in this
regulation's effective date would be contrary to public interest since
immediate action is needed to close this waterway and protect the
maritime public from the hazards of crew shells with limited
maneuverability racing in confined waters.
Background and Purpose
The Coast Guard received a request from the Albany Rowing Center to
close a portion of the Hudson River for the Empire State Regatta. This
safety zone closes a portion of the Hudson River, shore to shore, at
Albany, New York, between the Patroon Island Bridge and the Dunn
Memorial Bridge. The start docks and start platform will be installed
on Friday, June 7, 1996, by means of a cable crossing the width of the
river. After 3 p.m., the cable will be sunk and the docks clustered on
the western shoreline of the Hudson River at Albany, New York. Crew
shells will race in designated lanes within the race course on
Saturday, June 8, 1996. Commercial and recreational traffic will be
escorted through the race course by law enforcement vessels. Vessels
desiring escort can contact the on-scene U.S. Coast Guard Patrol
Commander on channel 16 VHF-FM. The times that vessels can be escorted
through the race course are tentative because actual race times are
largely dependent on winds and currents. The tentative times for escort
are 10:10 a.m., 12:30 p.m., and 2:10 p.m.; escort periods are expected
to be no longer than 15 minutes in duration.The safety zone closes all
waters south of the Patroon Island Bridge at 42 deg.39'50'' N latitude;
073 deg.43'45'' W longitude (NAD 1983) and north of the Dunn Memorial
Bridge at 42 deg.38'43'' N latitude; 073 deg.44'51'' W longitude (NAD
1983), Albany, New York. This safety zone precludes all vessels not
participating in the event from transiting this portion of the Hudson
River and is needed to protect mariners from the hazards of crew shells
with limited maneuverability racing in confined waters. Participating
vessels include race participants and race committee craft. All other
vessels, swimmers, and personal watercraft of any nature are precluded
from entering or moving within the safety zone without permission of
the Captain of the Port New York.
Regulatory Evaluation
This regulation is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an
assessment of 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
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 regulation to be so minimal that a full
Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies
and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This safety zone closes the
Hudson River, shore to shore, south of the Patroon Island Bridge and
north of the Dunn Memorial Bridge, Albany, New York, from 12:01 p.m. to
3 p.m. on Friday, June 7, 1996, and from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday,
June 8, 1996, unless extended or terminated sooner by the Captain of
the Port, New York. Although this regulation prevents traffic from
transiting this area, the effect of this regulation is not significant
for several reasons: this is an annual event with local support and has
been held for the past several years without incident or complaint, the
closure of the river has been reduced from three days to two days this
year, vessel traffic will have greater opportunities to transit during
the effective period of this regulation due to modifications to the
race course, and the notifications that will be made to the maritime
community via local notices to mariners.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this regulation will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
``Small entities'' may include (1) small businesses and not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields and (2) government jurisdictions with
populations less than 50,000.
For the reasons given in the Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this regulation will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Collection of Information
This regulation contains no collection-of-information requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq).
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this action in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and has
determined that this regulation does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this
regulation and concluded that, under section 2.B.2.e. (34)(g) of
Commandant Instruction M16475.1B, (as revised by 59 FR 38654, July 29,
1994), the promulgation of this regulation is categorically excluded
from further environmental documentation. A Categorical Exclusion
Determination and Environmental Analysis Checklist are included in the
docket.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
Final Regulation
For reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR
Part 165 as follows:
PART 165--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 165 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g),
6.04-1, 6.046-6, and 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.
2. A temporary section, 165.T01-023, is added to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T01-023 Safety Zone: Empire State Regatta, Hudson River,
Albany, New York.
(a) Location. The waters of Hudson River, Albany, New York, shore
to shore, south of the Patroon Island Bridge at 42 deg.39'50'' N
latitude; 073 deg.43'45'' W longitude, (NAD 1983) and north of the Dunn
Memorial Bridge at 42 deg.38'43'' N latitude; 073 deg.44'51'' W
longitude (NAD 1993).
[[Page 28057]]
(b) Effective period. This section is effective from 12:01 p.m.
until 3 p.m. on June 7, 1996, and from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on June 8,
1996, unless extended or terminated sooner by the Captain of the Port,
New York.
(c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR
165.23 apply to this safety zone.
(2) Vessels not participating in this event, swimmers, and personal
watercraft of any nature are precluded from entering or moving within
the safety zone without permission from the Captain of the Port New
York.
(3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on scene patrol
personnel. U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel include commissioned,
warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard. Upon being hailed by a
U.S. Coast Guard vessel via siren, radio, flashing light, or other
means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
Dated: May 9, 1996.
T.H. Gilmour,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, New York.
[FR Doc. 96-13859 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13856 Certification of Designated Fingerprinting Services
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28003-28020]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13856]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Immigration and Naturalization Service
8 CFR Parts 103 and 299
[INS No. 1666-94]
RIN 1115-AD75
Certification of Designated Fingerprinting Services
AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization Service, Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule amends the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(Service) regulations by certifying designated fingerprinting services
(DFS) to take fingerprints of applicants for immigration benefits. This
rule establishes the eligibility requirements and application
procedures for DFS certification. When the rule is implemented, it will
facilitate the processing of applications for immigration benefits,
protect the integrity of the fingerprinting process, and relieve the
strain on Service personnel resources.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective July 5, 1996. Entities desiring
to continue providing fingerprint services for immigration benefits
without interruption must file an application for DFS status in
accordance with the standards of this rule no later than November 1,
1996. After December 31, 1996, the Service will not accept fingerprints
taken by entities who have not filed an application for DFS
certification and been approved by the Service.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jack Rasmussen, Adjudications Officer, or Kathleen Hatcher,
Adjudications Officer, Adjudications Division, Immigration and
Naturalization Service, 425 I Street, NW., Room 3214, Washington, DC
20536, telephone (202) 514-3240; Kim Mangan, Adjudications Officer,
Immigration and Naturalization Service, 2901 Metro Dr., Suite 100,
Bloomington, MN 55425, telephone (612) 335-2234; Delia Ramirez,
Adjudications Officer, Immigration and Naturalization Service, EOFP 6th
Fl., P.O. Box 30080, Laguna Niguel, CA 92607-0080, telephone (714) 360-
3314; or Yolanda Sanchez, Adjudications Officer, Immigration and
Naturalization
[[Page 28004]]
Service, 509 N. Belt, Houston, TX 77060, telephone (713) 229-2833.
These are not toll-free numbers.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Applicants for various types of immigration benefits are required
to submit a set of fingerprints along with their applications. These
fingerprints are forwarded to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
for criminal history records clearance. The Service's field offices
frequently have been unable to provide timely fingerprinting services
due to the fluctuating demand in many localities. As a result of these
fluctuating fingerprinting demands, applicants for immigration benefits
frequently sought fingerprinting services from outside enterprises.
Initially, the Service gauged the quality of outside fingerprinting
through reviewing and evaluating individual application fingerprint
documents. However, with increasing volume of applications requiring
fingerprints, this approach proved to be less than effective. In
addition, concerns were raised about the integrity of fingerprints
submitted with many applications. In February of 1994, the Inspector
General of the Department of Justice completed a study regarding the
Service's fingerprint controls. The study identified two major
deficiencies as follows: (1) the Service relies on unknown and
untrained outside entities to prepare fingerprints and (2) the Service
does not know if the fingerprints submitted by the applicants are their
own. Additionally, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) pointed out
that fingerprint cards submitted by applicants were often of poor
quality and had to be rejected by the FBI. The OIG recommended that the
Service establish procedures to institute control and oversight of the
fingerprint process.
Following the OIG report, the General Accounting Office (GAO)
conducted an audit of the Service's fingerprint collection process and
ratified the OIG's findings. Furthermore, on July 14, 1994, the Senate
Committee on Appropriations included language directing that the
Service implement a fingerprint collection system which permits only
trained Service employee, recognized law enforcement agencies, or
Service-certified outside entities to take fingerprints.
The Service responded by revising and refining its policies and
publishing these in a notice of proposed rule making in the Federal
Register on May 15, 1995 (60 FR 25856) with a 60-day public comment
period. The public comment period ended on July 14, 1995. The notice of
proposed rulemaking presented a certification process that included
eligibility criteria, certification requirements, application
procedures, and a date on which the Service will stop accepting
fingerprint cards prepared by unauthorized organizations.
Name Change From DOE to DFS
In the proposed rule the Service referred to organizations
certified to take fingerprints as ``DOEs'' (Designated Outside
Entities). The Service has made a technical name change from ``DOE''
(Designated Outside Entity) to ``DFS'' (Designated Fingerprinting
Services) in order to minimize confusion and ambiguity with other
organizations performing functions ``outside'' the Service. This
technical name change to ``DFS'' (Designated Fingerprinting Services)
more accurately describes the specific function or services being
provided by the certified and designated organization(s). Furthermore,
the Service desires to increase outside or community-based partnership
roles in other areas related to immigration forms or documents, and
many immigration-related service organizations have expressed concern
that the certification given these outside entities may have been
interpreted beyond the intended fingerprinting role.
Discussion of Comments
Forty-four individuals or groups submitted comments. Most
commenters strongly supported the fingerprinting certification process.
Many expressed an interest in seeking DFS status. Only three commenters
preferred the current fingerprinting procedures over the new
certification process. The following is a summarized discussion of
those comments and the Service's response.
Section 103.2(e)(1) Fingerprinting by the Service
One commenter stated that the purpose of this regulation is to
establish oversight of organizations that charge a fee for
fingerprinting services. This commenter indicated that this purpose
should be clearly stated in the regulation. The Service believes that
the proposed regulation was clear on this point but has added language
to the last sentence of the general statement in the introductory text
of paragraph (e) to make the purpose of this regulation more explicit.
Another commenter suggested that the Service stop providing
fingerprinting service altogether and, instead, rely entirely on
certified DFS(s). The intent of the proposed rule was to make available
to INS customers high quality fingerprinting services. In areas where
there may not be sufficient business interest in the DFS process,
Service personnel will continue to offer fingerprinting services.
Accordingly, INS local offices have the flexibility to make decisions
based on local conditions.
In Sec. 103.2(e)(2) of the proposed rule, the Service provided that
when district offices do not have the resources to provide
fingerprinting services, they shall certify ``one or multiple outside
entities'' as DFS(s) to provide the service. One commenter asked INS to
clarify whether this provision gave the district director broad
discretionary authority to limit the number of DFS(s) he or she would
certify. On closer review of this provision, the proposed language
could be misleading or improperly construed as allowing the district
director to designate a single or a discretionary number of DFS(s) for
the entire immigration district. This particular interpretion of the
proposed provision would be at odds with the Service's expectation that
all district directors certify as many DFS(s) as there are qualified
applicants. In the final rule, the Service revised the language in the
proposed Sec. 103.2(e)(2) and merged it with Sec. 103.2(e)(1) to
clearly reflect this policy. The text in Sec. 103.2(e)(1) now includes
the provision that ``the district director shall consider all qualified
applicants for DFS certification and certify applicants who meet the
regulatory standards to supplement the district's efforts.''
Section 103.2(e)(2) Designated Fingerprinting Services
The Service has renamed the new Sec. 103.2(e)(2) as ``Designated
fingerprinting services'' and clarified the different procedures
involving the two classes of designated fingerprinting services: (1)
Designated law enforcement agencies (Federal, state, and local police
or military police); and (2) other businesses, organizations, and
individuals. As a law enforcement agency, a Federal, state, or local
police department may register with the Service to gain automatic DFS
status but is exempted from the requirements in this paragraph
regarding operating licenses, identification and training of employees,
attestation, inspections, or application fees. On the other hand, all
other designated fingerprinting services, including businesses,
individuals, or not-for-profit organizations, must abide by the
regulations and procedures established in Sec. 103.2(e).
[[Page 28005]]
Section 103.2(e)(3) Transition to use Designated Fingerprinting
Services
The Service has decided to implement the DFS Certification Program
in two stages: (1) As of 120 days from the effective date of this final
rule, the Service will require that all fingerprints submitted must be
taken by a Service employee, a DFS fingerprinter, a recognized law
enforcement agency, or an intending DFS who has completed and filed an
application for certification with the Service; and (2) As of 180 days
after the effective date of the final rule, the Service will no longer
accept fingerprint cards for immigration benefits that are taken by
unauthorized fingerprinters. However, the Service inadvertently
misstated in paragraph (e)(3)(iii) that an intending DFS or
organization would have only 90 days to file an application for DFS
certification instead of 120 days. This has been corrected in the final
rule under paragraph (e)(3)(i).
Two commenters were concerned that possible delays in the
processing of applications for DFS certification or renewal would
interrupt the applicants' businesses. They suggested that where delayed
adjudication occurred, the Service grant the applicants an automatic
grace period provided that the applications were timely filed (in the
case of initial certification, within the 120-day window, in the case
of renewal, 90 days before the certification expires). The Service
recognizes these concerns and has stressed the importance of timely
processing to its field personnel during training sessions on DFS
certification. The Service is confident that DFS applications will be
processed quickly, but agrees that in case of lengthy processing
delays, the district director may, on a case-by-case basis, grant
discretionary relief to applicants of a timely filed application to
avoid interruption to their businesses.
Section 103.2(e)(4) Eligibility for DFS
The Service proposed that DFS(s) be U.S. citizens or lawful
permanent residents (LPRs), and in the case of a business entity, that
the majority ownership of the business be held by U.S. citizens and
LPRs. One commenter opposed this requirement, arguing that people with
other immigration status could also be entrusted with this
responsibility. Another commenter said that the majority-ownership
requirement would require not-for-profit organizations to inquire into
the legal status of their volunteer officers, and that these inquiries
could be perceived as an invasion of privacy and deter interested
individuals from participating in volunteering work.
The U.S. citizens and LPR requirements were designed for security
purposes. Since the Service will have to rely on the DFS(s) to ensure
the integrity of the fingerprinting process, the status of United
States citizen or permanent resident creates a reasonable presumption
of allegiance and loyalty. While the Service is not persuaded that not-
for-profit organizations should be exempted from the U.S. citizen and
LPR requirement, the ownership provision may pose an undue burden on
private organizations. Specifically, the burden imposed by this
requirement does not result in an equal or better enhancement to
security needs. Therefore, and until the DFS certification program may
be evaluated over time, the Service has now determined that the
ownership provision is not necessary. The ownership language was
removed.
Section 103.2(e)(5) Criminal History Records Check
The same commenter also requested that not-for-profit organizations
and their employees be exempt from the FBI fingerprint check, arguing
that this requirement would invade their privacy and deter
participation by volunteers who are usually prominent and accomplished
members of the society. Another commenter asked for a waiver of the FBI
fingerprint check for not-for-profit entities approved by the Board of
Immigration Appeals under the provisions of 8 CFR 292.2. Although it is
true that persons affiliated with BIA-approved entities under
Sec. 292.2 generally are respected and accomplished individuals, this
is also likely to be true of other outside fingerprinters. Since there
is no objective way to pre-determine any individual's moral character,
it would be unfair for the Service to selectively exempt groups of DFS
applicants from the FBI fingerprint check. The objective of this
fingerprint check is to strengthen and restore the integrity of this
security process. Information obtained from the fingerprint check will
not be shared with any entity other than the organization seeking
certification or a law enforcement agency should there be an
outstanding warrant.
The Service proposed to bar from DFS status any individuals who
have been convicted of an aggravated felony or a crime involving
dishonesty or false statement, or who have been subjected to a civil
penalty for fraud. However, exceptions could be made for an employee of
an outside entity if convincing mitigating factors exist--for example,
the person's youth at the time of the crime or the number of years that
have elapsed since the offense. Two commenters objected to this
provision, arguing that there are no uniform standards that can be used
to determine rehabilitation of a convicted felon. These commenters
urged that all convicted felons be barred from taking fingerprints
regardless of when the crime was committed. As a rule, the Service will
not approve a convicted felon as a DFS fingerprinter. However, if a
convicted felon can demonstrate that he or she has since been
rehabilitated and has led a productive, constructive and law-abiding
life in his or her community and our society for many years, the
district director may approve such an individual as a fingerprinter.
However, the Service believes that cases like this should be evaluated
on a case-by-case basis. In any case, the district director will not
approve a DFS fingerprinter with a felony conviction unless the
individual can satisfactorily and clearly demonstrate a record of
rehabilitation. The burden of proof rests solely with the applicant.
Section 103.2(e)(6) Requirements
Paragraph (e)(6)(ii)
The commenters were evenly divided on the issue of unannounced on-
site inspections. Three commenters, all would-be DFS(s), were opposed
to the requirement that a DFS permit unannounced on-site inspections by
the Service to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements. These
commenters felt that Government oversight of their businesses was not
needed because they regularly monitor their own employees. One
commenter was concerned that surprise visits by the Service would be
disruptive to DFS activities and violate the confidentiality of
individuals seeking legal assistance. On the other hand, several
commenters praised the Service's initiative in this regard. One
commenter pointed out that his organization enjoyed a good rapport with
the Service's field personnel when working with them during the
Legalization Program, and is looking forward to working closely with
the Service again as a DFS.
As explained earlier, the Service undertook this rulemaking to
restore integrity and establish oversight of the fingerprint process.
The unannounced on-site inspection requirement is a quality control
feature designed to ensure compliance with the DFS(s) certification
requirements. At the same time, on-site inspections provide the Service
with the opportunity to stay in active communication with the DFS(s),
[[Page 28006]]
enabling the Service to evaluate the effectiveness of the DFS
certification program. Only by observing DFS(s) at work during their
regular business hours can the Service determine whether the objectives
of the DFS certification are being met. The Service will conduct these
inspections in a reasonable and nonintrusive manner in order to
minimize disruption to DFS operations.
Paragraph (e)(6)(iii)
The Service proposed that outside entities be trained in
fingerprinting techniques and procedures by the FBI or the Service
before receiving certification, but that exceptions could be made for
an individual who could demonstrate proficiency in fingerprinting
techniques. One commenter pointed out that an individual who is
proficient in taking fingerprints may not be knowledgeable about the
various DFS responsibilities and requirements. Since the training
focuses both on fingerprinting techniques and certification
requirements, including completion of the attestation form and proper
photo-ID verification, it was recommended that only those who have had
``equivalent training'' be exempt from the training requirement. The
commenter's point is well taken and has been adopted.
Paragraph (e)(6)(iv)
The Service proposed that DFS applicants notify the Service of the
completion of any scheduled training prior to the approval of their
applications. One commenter recommended that DFS(s) be required to
complete any scheduled training within 60 days of the submission of the
application. The Service considered this suggestion, but decided that a
time limit is not necessary since a DFS employee is not permitted to
take fingerprints until he or she has been approved by the Service. A
DFS employee who fails to complete the scheduled training in a timely
manner will only delay his or her employment. To clarify that the
Service will not approve a DFS employee unless he or she completes the
required training, paragraph (e)(6)(iv) has been modified to require
DFS(s) to ``notify the district director, where the application was
filed, and when the completion of fingerprinting training occurred
prior to the approval of the application, if such training was not
completed but was in progress or had been scheduled at the filing of
the application.'' Additionally, a correction has been made in
paragraph (e)(6)(v) to insert the word ``and,'' which was inadvertently
left out in the proposed rule, between ``(exceptions can be made for
those who have received training from the FBI or the Service)'' and
``to conduct periodic refresher training as needed.''
Paragraph (e)(6)(vii)
The proposed rule would require DFS(s) to offer free retakes if
they prepared illegible fingerprints that were rejected by the FBI. One
commenter suggested that the Service include a statement on its fee
receipts to benefit applicants that DFS(s) are obligated to retake
illegible fingerprints free of charge. Two other commenters were
concerned that the benefit applicants would need some kind of proof to
show who took the rejected fingerprints. Another commenter stated that
Federal, state, and local police registered as DFS(s) should also give
free retakes since they too charge a fee for taking fingerprints.
Recognizing that benefit applicants will need to show proof of
rejection by the FBI to the responsible DFS(s) in order to receive free
retakes, the Service suggests that claimants for free retakes show the
notice they will receive from INS that they must resubmit their
fingerprints along with a sales receipt from the responsible DFS.
Police agencies registered with the Service as DFS(s) are subject to
the same free retake requirement if they charge a fingerprinting fee.
Paragraph (e)(6)(viii)
The proposed rule would require the DFS(s) to submit fingerprints
on FD-258 and other Service-designated forms. One commenter wondered if
DFS(s) would be expected to take fingerprints for applicants seeking to
replace their Alien Registration Cards on Form I-90. Form I-90,
Application for Replacement of Alien Registration Card, and Form I-765,
Application for Employment Authorization Document, will be included in
the group of fingerprint forms DFS(s) are authorized to prepare after
they have been revised to incorporate a fingerprint block and a DFS
attestation. But the Service will have to undertake rulemaking before
implementing these planned revisions.
Paragraph (e)(6)(xi)
The Service proposed that DFS(s) verify the identification of the
individuals they fingerprint by comparing their photo-IDs with the
information on their fingerprint cards. The proposed rule would require
DFS(s) to accept only passports, alien registration cards (green cards)
or other Service-issued photo-IDs for identification verification. Six
commenters protested that this requirement was to restrictive because
it excluded many people who were in lawful status but who did not
possess either a passport or a Service-issued photo-ID, such as
refugees, asylees, or even some United States citizens. The commenters
recommended that DFS(s) be allowed to accept state-issued photo-IDs,
such as a driver's license. The Service's intent in this requirement
was two-fold: (1) to exclude photo-IDs that can be easily
counterfeited; and (2) to keep the verification process as simple and
clear as possible. But the Service agrees that the list of acceptable
photo-IDs may be expanded without compromising the integrity of the
photo-ID verification process to include other valid photo-IDs.
Therefore, foreign national identification documents have been added to
the list of acceptable documents. Two (2) examples of national
identification documents which may be acceptable are those issued by
the Government of Hong Kong and Taiwan. Likewise, military
identification documents issued by the Northern Atlantic Treaty
Organization would be acceptable. Additionally, drivers' licenses and
state-issued photo identification documents have been added to the list
of acceptable documents. The final rule has been revised to reflect
these changes.
Paragraph (e)(6)(xiii)
It was proposed that the DFS provide specific information on the
fingerprint card, FD-258, or other Service- designated documents. The
specific information to be provided by the DFS included the following:
(1) The DFS had been certified by the Service; (2) The name and address
of the DFS; (3) The DFS certification number, including the expiration
date; and (4) The fingerprinter's name and employee Identification
number. One commenter recommended that DFS(s) be required to put this
information on a rubber stamp. The Service agrees that a standardized
rubber stamp would be more efficient insofar as the information needed
from the DFS. Accordingly, the DFS may use a rubber stamp if he or she
desires. The regulation requires that stamped or written information be
placed on the backside of the fingerprint card in the space reserved.
Should the DFS use a rubber stamp it is recommended that the stamped
information be clearly legible and fit into the space (four inches
[4''] wide, and one and one quarter inches [1\1/4\''] high). The
specific information provided on a rubber stamp must contain the
information listed as items (1) through (4) in this paragraph.
Additionally, it is required that the specific information provided on
the rubber stamp also include a space for
[[Page 28007]]
the fingerprinter's signature and the date the fingerprints were taken.
The DFS may also imprint a blank stamp, with DFS(s) original signature
and date, on a sealed envelope which contains the completed fingerprint
document. When the envelope containing the completed fingerprint
document is sealed, that envelope may not be opened or altered. The
Services has revised paragraph (e)(6) in the final rule to reflect
these changes.
Paragraph (e)(6)(xiv)
It was proposed that DFS(s) be allowed to charge a reasonable fee
for providing fingerprinting services and that the fees be published in
a list distributed by each INS district office. Two commenters
recommended that, in order to keep the fee reasonable, the Service
should impose a limit on fees. Another commenter suggested that the
Service was proposing to control the fees DFSs charge by disclosing
that information to competitors, and maintained that DFS fees should be
determined entirely by competition in the marketplace. The Service's
position on the fee issue is motivated by two policies: (1) DFS(s)
should be allowed to set prices and compete for business; and (2) the
consumers' interests are to be protected. In including the fee
information on the DFS list, the Service is ensuring that consumers
will have the information they need while allowing DFS(s) to compete
for customers by offering the best value and service.
Paragraph (e)(6)(xv)
One commenter suggested that the Service define the term
``immediately'' as used in the proposed rule, which would require
DFS(s) to immediately report to the Service any changes in personnel
responsible for taking fingerprints. Since DFS(s) may not employ any
fingerprints without prior approval by the Service, this reporting
requirement is really intended to provide notice to the Service when
fingerprinters are no longer employed in those positions. The approval
of a DFS fingerprinter is conditioned on his or her continued
employment with a particular DFS employer. To protect the integrity of
the Service's master DFS listings, it is important that DFS(s) report
personnel changes as soon as they take place. For the purpose of this
paragraph, a DFS is encouraged to report personnel changes in advance
where feasible, and is required to notify the district director having
jurisdiction over the DFS(s) business location of a personnel change
within 2 working days. The final rule reflects this change.
The Service also considered and rejected a suggestion that it
require DFS(s) to post a $500 bond to guarantee retakes for benefit
applicants who were provided with poor quality fingerprints. The
Service believes that the DFS regulation provides sufficient
performance incentives. A requirement to post a performance bond would
be too much of a burden on the DFS(s) and the Service.
Paragraph (e)(6)(xviii)
One commenter suggested that the Service remove the requirement to
maintain ``clean and suitable agencies that are accessible to the
public,'' asking ``who will determine what is clean and suitable or
whether there is sufficient access to the public?'' The commenter
raised a valid point. Since all businesses must comply with various
public safety and health regulations imposed by the relevant Federal,
state, and local governments, the Service agrees that it should defer
to the responsible governments in this case. However, since the DFS(s)
are certified to provide fingerprinting services to applicants for
immigration benefits, they must operate at permanent business locations
that are accessible to the public. Moreover, except in situations where
DFS(s) have made advance arrangements to process groups of applicants
off-site, DFS(s) are expected to conduct their fingerprinting
businesses at the addresses given on their applications for
certification. Accordingly, paragraph (e)(6)(xviii) was revised to
include the joint requirement that DFS(s) ``maintain facilities which
are permanent and accessible to the public.'' The use of this joint
requirement specifically excludes facilities described as private
homes, vans or automobiles, mobile carts, and removable stands or
portable storefronts.
Section 103.2(e)(7) Attestation
Four commenters thought that the requirement of a DFS attestation
on Form I-850A for each person fingerprinted was unnecessary and unduly
burdensome. Two of the commenters recommended that the attestation be
stamped on or incorporated into the fingerprint card, FD-258, instead.
Two other commenters suggested that DFS(s) be required to retain copies
of their attestations for 1 year instead of 3 months. One of these
commenters said that DFS(s) should keep copies of the attestations
longer than 3 months as a way of tracking their own customers in cases
where free retakes were needed.
The fingerprint card, FD-258, is a Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) form that can only be revised by that agency. Any change to the
design of the form will have an effect on the FBI's automated
fingerprint classification process. The Service will refer this
suggestion to the FBI for its consideration. The Service is reluctant
to increase the administrative burdens by lengthening the period for
which DFS(s) must keep copies of their attestations on file. The
rationale for the 3-month requirement is to provide the Service with a
sample of the quality of the DFS' work. However, any DFS is free to
maintain copies of attestations for a longer period as a way to verify
fingerprinting sales and reconcile requests for retakes.
Paragraph (e)(7)(ii)
It was also suggested that the terms ``the original copy'' and
``the second copy'' as used in the proposed rule be changed to ``the
original'' and ``the copy.'' The suggestion was adopted and paragraph
(e)(7)(ii) was amended to reflect this change. Finally, due to the
expansion of the types of photo-IDs acceptable for identification
verification purposes as prescribed by paragraph (e)(6)(xi) of the
final rule, parallel changes have been made to paragraph (e)(7)(i)(C)
to ensure consistency.
Section 103.2(e)(8) Application
Three commenters asked whether there was a limited application
period and whether DFS(s) certified by a given Service local office
were limited to providing service to people who resided within the
jurisdiction of that office. An outside organization may file an
application for DFS certification at any time after the final rule
takes effect. However, only those currently providing fingerprinting
services who file within the initial 120 days may continue to take
fingerprints without interruption. Those who file after the 120-day
window will have to wait until their applications are approved to begin
taking fingerprints. Once an organization obtains DFS certification,
the DFS is not limited to taking fingerprints of benefit applicants who
reside in the same jurisdiction. A certified DFS may take fingerprints
of applicants who reside in other jurisdictions, but any completed
fingerprint card must bear the specific code for the Service office
where the fingerprint card will be filed. For example, a DFS certified
by the New York District Office may fingerprint a visitor from San
Francisco on an FD-258 fingerprint card if the correct Originating
Agency Identifier (ORI) code for San Francisco is entered in the block
labeled ORI. At the same time, a DFS
[[Page 28008]]
with multiple locations which fall under the jurisdiction of the same
Service district director may file a single application, with one fee,
by including all the business locations and employees. However, DFS(s)
with cross-jurisdiction locations will have to file separate
applications for business offices that fall under the jurisdiction of
different district directors. Each application must include the
required fee and information on all business locations and employees in
that jurisdiction.
One commenter suggested that the Service make DFS applications a
part of the public record. This suggestion was not adopted because
applications contain, in part, information that is private or
proprietary. Those portions that are subject to release are available
under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Section 103.2(e)(9) Registration of Police Stations or Military Police
Agencies
One commenter proposed that local police in rural areas be allowed
to continue their fingerprinting services since certified DFS(s) might
be a long distance away. Two commenters complained that the police were
not adequately regulated, attaching alleged examples of poor quality
fingerprinting work by local police stations. Another commenter wanted
college and university campus police to be granted DFS status without
registration. The Service understands that people living in remote
areas rely on the local police for fingerprinting service, and has
always intended to include the police as DFS(s). The DFS regulation
provides that Federal, state, and local police, as well as military
police, can automatically become DFS(s) if they register with the
Service. Once registered, they will be placed on the DFS list and
receive updates of the DFS regulation and requirements. Further, campus
police who have general arrest authority pursuant to a state statute,
and who have met the training requirements established for law
enforcement officers, are exempted from the DFS requirements and may
follow the streamlined registration procedures reserved for law
enforcement agencies. Clarifying language has been added to
Sec. 103.2(e)(2)(i) to explain this point.
Section 103.2(e)(11) Approval of Application
The Service has made typographical corrections in the second
sentence of the introductory text to paragraph (e)(11) by: (1)
inserting the word ``number'' between the word ``certification'' and
the word ``to;'' and (2) replacing the word ``fingerprints'' with
``fingerprints.'' That sentence now reads: ``When the application has
been approved, the district director shall assign a certification
number to the DFS and individual ID numbers to its approved
fingerprints.''
Section 103.2(e)(12) Denial of the Application
Three commenters asked the Service to clarify the appeals process
available to DFS applicants whose applications are denied. DFS
applicants are entitled to appeal rights as provided by 8 CFR 103.3 and
8 CFR 103.5. DFS applicants who wish to appeal a denial decision may
file an appeal on Form I-290B, with the required fee, with the
Service's Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) within 30 days of the
decision. DFS applicants may also file a motion to reopen or reconsider
with the Service district office having jurisdiction.
Section 103.2(e)(17) Change of Address or in Fee
Under the proposed rule, a DFS was required to report promptly, to
the district director having jurisdiction over the DFS(s) place of
business, any change in address or in fee. One commenter thought that
the proposed requirement was inadequate in that it did not require the
DFS to report these changes in advance. This commenter argued that it
would be difficult to preserve fair competition among DFS(s) and
protect the consumers unless DFS(s) were required to report changes in
address or in fee in advance. In order to give the Service sufficient
time to update its DFS listings and to make that information available
to the public, the commenter suggested that DFS(s) be required to
report these changes at least 10 working days before they occur. The
Service concurs that the public should be protected from possible fee
manipulation by DFS(s) and that the DFS listings will not have the
intended effect unless the public is provided with accurate information
about DFS fees and locations. Accordingly, the Service has adjusted the
final rule to require a 10-working day advance notice for changes in
address or fee. DFS(s) who make unreported fee changes are subject to
revocation of their DFS status as provided by paragraph (e)(17). Note
that the requirement of a permanent address does not preclude a DFS
from processing groups of applicants off site, such as processing
applicants for naturalization at a school auditorium.
Miscellaneous Items
1. Opposing Views
Three commenters preferred the current system, stating that the
proposed regulation was unnecessary and burdensome. One commenter
challenged the OIG report, arguing that there had been no known report
of fraud in the submission of fingerprints. As explained in the
background section of the supplemental information, the Service
initiated this rulemaking to provide integrity to its benefits
adjudications process and to address the concerns of the Senate
Committee on Appropriations and the Department of Justice's Office of
Inspector General (OIG). It has been established that the current
fingerprinting process does not adequately ensure either the quality or
the integrity of fingerprints submitted to the Service by applicants
for immigration benefits. In drafting this rule, the Service has
carefully considered the policies of Executive Order 12866 and the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and has attempted to ensure that the
intended objectives are met without unduly burdening the affected small
businesses.
2. Application Fee
Three commenters protested the application fee of $370. One of them
suggested that the Service underwrite the costs of administering the
DFS certification program, including training. The other two said the
estimated costs for training and monitoring were too high. However,
another commenter said the Service underestimated the program costs,
maintaining that the proposed application fee of $370 was not enough to
offset the administrative costs of the program.
The Service's Adjudications program does not receive any
appropriated funds from Congress. Instead, it is authorized by Congress
to collect user fees to support its functions. In order to determine
the appropriate application fee for the DFS Certification Program, the
Service conducted a fee analysis based on estimated processing and
administrative costs, such as staffing, training of Service personnel
on the DFS certification process, adjudication of applications,
oversight of DFS(s), and providing fingerprinting training. The actual
cost of running the DFS Certification Program will not be known until
it has been fully implemented. At that time, the Service will determine
whether the fee structure needs to be adjusted.
One other commenter recommended that the Service make special
provisions
[[Page 28009]]
for outside entities with multiple business locations across the
country. This commenter suggested that businesses with multiple
locations be allowed to file a single application with a single
application fee, and that a site fee of $35 be charged for each
additional location to cover administrative and monitoring costs. While
the regulation allows DFS(s) with multiple business locations within
the jurisdiction of the same Service district to file a single
application with a single fee, it does not provide for certification of
a national fingerprinting service with cross-jurisdiction business
locations. However, the Service agrees that outside entities with
multiple locations in the jurisdiction of the same district office will
incur greater administrative and monitoring costs and should be
required to pay a site fee for each location. Because the public has
not been offered the opportunity to comment on the concept of a site
fee, the Service has decided to defer the consideration of a site fee
until after the full implementation of the DFS certification program.
If it is evident then that the application fee was below cost, the
Service will make appropriate adjustments to the application fee
structure through rulemaking.
As noted in our earlier discussions regarding Sec. 103.2(e)(8), due
to regulatory limitations placed on the district director's authority,
a district director cannot approve DFS(s) operating outside of his or
her jurisdiction. Therefore, while DFS(s) with multiple business
locations in the same INS district only needs to file one application
with one fee, DFS(s) with multiple business operations in different INS
districts must file a separate application, with the required fee, with
each district director having jurisdiction over the business
location(s).
3. Free Space for Photographing and Fingerprinting Studios
One commenter protested that the Service gives preferential
treatment to not-for-profit organizations. This commenter cited as an
example the free use of studio space (for fingerprinting and/or
photographing services), in the Service's local offices, by certain
not-for-profit organizations. The commenter argued that this practice,
as provided by 8 CFR 332.2, unfairly disadvantaged other competing
business entities and had to be changed. Indeed, 8 CFR 332.2 provides
that district directors may make available, free of charge, space
within district offices for the ``establishment and operation of
studios providing photographic services, fingerprinting services or
both.'' It further provides that these studios must be ``operated by
sponsoring organizations on a nonprofit basis solely for the benefit of
persons seeking to comply with the requirements of the immigration and
naturalization laws.'' During the implementation period of the
legalization program, as provided by the Immigration Reform and Control
Act (IRCA) of 1986, the Service's local Legalization offices often had
studios operated by not-for-profit organizations. However, due to
overcrowding and lack of resources, most district offices have ended
this practice over the past few years. Moreover, the remaining agencies
operating under Sec. 332.2 remain subject to the separate restrictions
of these regulations. This new program addresses a larger group of
organizations which is largely not subject to Sec. 332.2.
4. Not-For-Profit Organizations and Entities Approved by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) under 8 CFR Part 292
Twenty-one of the commenters are not-for-profit organizations which
were accredited for representation of others by the BIA. They asked
that they be granted automatic DFS status, without fee. These
commenters argued that they should not have to apply for DFS status
because they had already been approved by the BIA. They further argued
that not-for-profit organizations were typically under-funded, and the
proposed application fee of $370 would pose a significant financial
burden for them. They also argued that they were limited to charging
only a ``nominal fee'' that could not be used to supplement their
administrative costs.
The Service is sympathetic to these commenters' financial
difficulties and is willing to assist where feasible. But because the
Service's benefit programs are all supported by user fees, the DFS
Certification Program must also be funded by its user--the DFS
applicants. Waiving the fee or the application requirement for not-for-
profit organizations would be perceived as giving preferential
treatment to special interest groups. Moreover, the Service would be
obligated to charge other DFS applicants a higher fee to offset the
costs incurred by the not-for-profit organizations.
When the $370 application fee is apportioned for 3 years, the
period during which a DFS certification remains valid, the annual
certification cost is $123, which can easily be passed on to the users
as a service charge. The Service is of the opinion that entities
accredited for representation by the BIA are not in violation of the
``nominal fee'' provision of 8 CFR 292.2, when they charge a reasonable
fee for fingerprinting services.
Some commenters proposed that the Service exclude from DFS
certification any entity which has had a history of offering assistance
in matters involving the immigration law without a license. They were
concerned that these practitioners would exploit unknowing aliens if
authorized to provide fingerprinting services. One commenter suggested
that DFS applicants be required to sign a statement on the application
form attesting to compliance with the requirements of 8 CFR 292, which
prescribes the authority to represent applicants for immigration
benefits. This commenter also suggested that the Service require DFS
applicants to list all other services that they provide in addition to
fingerprinting to ensure that they were not ``practicing law without
authorization.''
The sole purpose of the DFS regulation (8 CFR 103.2(e)) is to
establish eligibility requirements and application procedures for
outside entities who wish to be approved as fingerprinters. The
authority granted to outside entities certified under 8 CFR 103.2(e) is
limited to providing fingerprinting services. Meanwhile, 8 CFR 292
provides for the accreditation of individuals or organizations that
wish to represent aliens before the Service and/or the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA). Qualified individuals or organizations must
apply to the BIA for accreditation. Since the governing regulations
clearly define the scope and conditions of each of these two types of
authorizations, it is unlikely that there will be confusion about their
purposes. However, to avoid the possibility that outside entities might
exploit their DFS status, the Service has added a new paragraph (e)(18)
in the final rule to prohibit them from engaging in any kind of
advertisement or presentation which may create a false impression that
they are authorized by the Service to do more than fingerprinting.
DFS(s) are prohibited from using images of the Service's logo type or
official seal on any of their stationery, information flyers, or
advertisements. When dealing with the public or advertising for
business, a DFS is required to refer to itself as ``an INS-Authorized
Fingerprinting Service.'' Violators are subject to revocation of their
DFS status as provided by 8 CFR 103.2(e)(18).
The information collection requirements contained in this rule have
been cleared by the Office of Management and Budget, under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Clearance numbers for these
[[Page 28010]]
collections are contained in 8 CFR 299.5, Display of Control Numbers.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, in
accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has
reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The Service has drafted this rule in a way to minimize
the impact that it has on small business while meeting its intended
objectives.
The Service believes that there are approximately 3,000 outside
entities which are taking fingerprints for immigration benefit
applicants. Because the entities providing fingerprinting services at
present are primarily small businesses, the Service has developed and
reviewed this rule with the needs and circumstances of small businesses
specifically in mind. The Service is not aware of any relevant Federal
rules which duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
The Service has considered significant alternatives to this rule
which accomplish the objectives and which minimize any significant
economic impact of this rule on small entities, including the use of
contracting or greater use of Service agencies. The Service has sought
to avoid burdens on outside entities beyond those requirements needed
to improve the quality of the fingerprints taken and to provide
assurance to the Service that the fingerprints it receives are genuine.
As appropriate, requirements have been drafted as performance
standards, for example: that the fingerprints taken be legible and
classifiable; that DFS personnel charged with the responsibility to
take fingerprints pass an FBI criminal history records check; and that
such DFS personnel be trained in fingerprinting or otherwise be able to
demonstrate their proficiency.
Executive Order 12866
The Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice,
considers this rule be a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined
by section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. With perhaps as many as 3,000
entities likely to file for DFS certification, this rule may lead to
the collection of application fees that would ``materially alter the
budgetary impact of * * * user fees * * * or the rights and obligations
of recipients'' of the related services. The Office of Management and
Budget has conducted the necessary review of this rule.
This rulemaking action is being conducted in order to address the
concerns of the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General
(OIG) and the Committee on Appropriations of the United States Senate
regarding the current fingerprinting process. The objectives of this
rule are to facilitate processing of applications for immigration
benefits, protect the integrity of the fingerprinting process, and
relieve strain on Service resources by establishing criteria for the
cerrtification of designated fingerprinting services to take
fingerprints. The legal basis for this rule is the authority conferred
upon the Attorney General and delegated to the Service under section
103 (a) and (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish
regulations needed to carry out its functions. This rule will
substantially promote the Service's ability to identify and deny
benefits to ineligible aliens, and to promptly and effectively
administer the immigration laws of the United States by reducing
unnecessary delays caused by poor fingerprint cards.
Executive Order 12612
The regulation 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 rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
List of Subjects
8 CFR Part 103
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations
(Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
8 CFR Part 299
Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 103--POWERS AND DUTIES OF SERVICE OFFICERS; AVAILABILITY OF
SERVICE RECORDS
1. The authority citation for part 103 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552, 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 11201, 1252
note, 1252b, 1304, 1356; 31 U.S.C. 9701; E.O. 12356, 47 FR 14874,
15557, 3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 166; 8 CFR part 2.
2. Section 103.1 is amended by:
a. Removing the ``and'' from paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(LL),
b. Removing the ``.'' from the end of paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(MM) and
replacing it with a ``; and'', and by
c. Adding a new paragraph (f)(3)(iii)(NN), to read as follows:
Sec. 103.1 Delegations of Authority.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) * * *
(NN) Application for Certification For Designated Fingerprinting
Services under Sec. 103.2(e) of this chapter.
3. In Sec. 103.2, a new paragraph (e) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 103.2 Applications, petitions, and other documents.
* * * * *
(e) Fingerprinting. Service regulations require that applicants for
various types of immigration benefits submit their fingerprints with
the applications. To ensure they have access to reputable
fingerprinting services, the fingerprinting of these benefit applicants
must be carried out pursuant to the fingerprinting service provisions
established in this paragraph.
(1) Fingerprinting by the Service. Where feasible, a local Service
office shall provide fingerprinting service to applicants for
immigration benefits. Also, the district director shall consider all
qualified applicants for DFS certification and certify applicants who
meet the regulatory standards to supplement the district's efforts.
Where district Service personnel are providing fingerprinting services,
the district director may end such services when he or she determines
that there are sufficient outside or private fingerprinting services
available at a reasonable fee.
(2) Designated fingerprinting services. (i) Law enforcement
agencies. Federal, state, or local police, or military police, in the
United States are not required to apply for DFS certification. However,
it is essential that any Federal, state, and local police, or military
police, that provide fingerprinting services to applicants for
immigration benefits be familiar with the Service's fingerprinting
regulations and requirements. In order to receive updates on such
regulations and requirements, a policy agency that does provide such
services must register with the Service pursuant to procedures
prescribed by Sec. 103.2(e)(9). Campus police departments having
general arrest powers pursuant to a State statute and meeting training
requirements
[[Page 28011]]
established by law or ordinance for law enforcement officers are
included within the category of state or local police departments for
purposes of Sec. 103.2(e).
(ii) Other business entities or individuals. Businesses and
individuals who apply and qualify shall, subject to the requirements of
Sec. 103.2(e), be approved by the Service to provide fingerprinting
services.
(3) Transition to use designated fingerprinting services. As of
December 31, 1996, the Service will not accept fingerprint cards for
immigration benefits unless they are taken by:
(i) A DFS accompanied by a completed attestation, Form I-850A,
Attestation by Designated Fingerprinting Services Certified to Take
Fingerprints;
(ii) An intending DFS or organization that has completed an filed
an application for DFS status prior to November 1, 1996 which may,
pending the Service's action upon its application, take fingerprints
and complete the Form I-850A, indicating that its application for DFS
status is pending. This provisional authority for an outside entity
shall cease if its application is denied or as of December 31, 1996
whichever occurs first.
(iii) A recognized law enforcement agency that is registered as a
DFS; or
(iv) Designated Service employees.
(4) Eligibility for DFS. An outside entity applying for DFS status
may be a business, a not-for-profit organization, or an individual.
(i) An individual must establish that he or she is a United States
citizen or lawful permanent resident, and has not been convicted of an
aggravated felony or any crime related to dishonesty or false
statements involving a civil penalty for fraud.
(ii) A business or a not-for-profit organization must establish the
identity of its chief operations officer, who exercises primary and
oversight control over the organization's operations, and its
fingerprinting employees; and the business or a not-for-profit
organization must establish that the chief operations officer and
fingerprinting employees are United States citizens or lawful permanent
resident(s), and that its principal officers, directors, or partners
meet the standard for individual applicants.
(iii) A Federal, state, or local law enforcement agency may
register as a designated fingerprinting service. However, a law
enforcement agency is not required to comply with the operating
license(s), identification and training of employees, criminal record
history check, attestation, or application fee provisions in this
paragraph.
(5) Criminal history records check.
(i) An identification and criminal history record check is required
for each employee or person as otherwise described in paragraphs (e)(4)
(i) and (ii) of this section who will take fingerprints listed on the
application for DFS certification. The district director shall
designate Service personnel of the district office to obtain and
transmit fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for
such checks. If a DFS needs to add new or replacement employees to the
personnel approved by the Service, it must file a new application with
the district director having jurisdiction over the DFS's place of
business. That new application must be accompanied by the required fee
for the FBI fingerprint check. The Service will accept fingerprints
from an applicant for DFS certification only it the fingerprints were
taken by designated Service personnel.
(ii) An employee who has been convicted of an aggravated felony or
a crime involving dishonestly or false statement, or who has been
subjected to a civil penalty for fraud, may not be assigned to take
fingerprints unless the DFS can establish to the Service's satisfaction
that the circumstances of the offense are such (because of the person's
youth at the time of the offense, and/or the number of years that have
passed since its commission) that there can be no reasonable doubt as
to the person's reliability in taking fingerprints in conformity with
these rules.
(6) Requirements. Except as provided under paragraph(e)(9) of this
section, an outside entity seeking certification as a DFS must agree
that it will:
(i) Abide by Service regulations governing certification of DFS(s);
(ii) Permit Service personnel and Service contract personnel to
make on-site inspections to ensure compliance with required procedures;
(iii) Ensure that the personnel responsible for taking fingerprints
received training in fingerprinting procedures by the Service or FBI
(exceptions can be made for those who have previously received training
from the FBI or the Service or who can otherwise demonstrate equivalent
training);
(iv) Notify the district director where the application was filed
when the completion of fingerprinting training occurred prior to the
approval of the application, if such training was not completed but was
in progress or had been scheduled at the filing of the application;
(v) Use only FBI or Service-trained employees to train its new
employees on fingerprinting procedures (exceptions can be made for
those who have previously received training from the FBI or the
Service) and to conduct periodic refresher training as needed;
(vi) Make every reasonable effort to take legible and classifiable
fingerprints, using only black ink;
(vii) Retake the applicants' prints free of charge if the DFS
initially fails to take legible and classifiable prints;
(viii) Use only the fingerprint card(s), Form(s) FD-258, or other
Service-designated documents to take fingerprints for immigration
purposes;
(ix) Ensure that the fingerprint card(s) or other Service-
designated fingerprint documents are completed in accordance with the
instructions provided, using FBI prescribed personal descriptor codes;
(x) Ensure that the fingerprint card(s) or other Service-designated
forms are signed by the applicants in their presence and by the
fingerprinter;
(xi) Verify the identification of the person being fingerprinted by
comparing the information on the fingerprint card, Form FD-258, or
other Service-designated forms with the applicant's passport, national
ID, military ID, driver's license or state-issued photo-ID, alien
registration card, or other acceptable Service-issued photo-ID;
(xii) Complete an attestation on Form I-850A, Attestation by
Designated Fingerprinting Service Certified to Take Fingerprints, and
provide it to the person being fingerprinted;
(xiii) Note (legibly by hand or using a rubber stamp) on the back
of the fingerprint card, Form FD-258, or a Service designated
fingerprint document, the DFS's name and address, certification number,
expiration date, the DFS fingerprinter's ID number and signature, and
the date on which the fingerprints are taken. The DFS fingerprint shall
seal the completed fingerprint card or fingerprint document, and sign
or imprint a stamp with an original signature crossing the sealed area.
(xiv) Charge only reasonable fees for fingerprinting services, and
the current fee status is to be made known to the Service;
(xv) Notify the director having jurisdiction over the applicant's
place of business within 2 working days, on Form I-850 without fee, of
any changes in personnel responsible for taking fingerprints;
(xvi) Request approval for any new personnel to take fingerprints
according to the procedures set forth in paragraphs
[[Page 28012]]
(e) (4), (5), (6), (8), and (9) of this section;
(xvii) Notify the Service of any conviction for an aggravated
felony or for a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, or of
any civil penalty for fraud subsequent to the DFS certification of an
employee authorized to take fingerprints; and
(xviii) Maintain facilities which are permanent and accessible to
the public. The use of the terms permanent and accessible to the public
shall not include business or organizational operations in private
homes, vans or automobiles, mobile carts, and removable stands or
portable storefronts.
(7) Attestation.
(i) To ensure the integrity of the fingerprint cards submitted by
applicants for benefits, all DFS fingerprinters must fill out an
attestation on Form I-850A each time they take fingerprints for an
immigration benefit applicant. Such attestation mut be signed and dated
by the fingerprinter and show:
(A) The fingerprinter's name and ID number (as assigned by the
Service) and a statement that the requirements of Sec. 103.2(e) have
been met;
(B) The name, address, certification number (as assigned by the
Service), and expiration date of the DFS certification;
(C) That he or she has checked the identity of the person he or she
fingerprinted and has listed the identification number from the
individual's passport, national ID, military ID, driver's license or
state-issued photo-ID, alien registration card, or other acceptable
Service-issued photo-ID; and
(D) That it is signed and dated by the benefit applicant.
(ii) DFS fingerprinters must execute the attestations in duplicate
in the presence of the applicant. The original must be given to the
applicant to be filed with the Service with his or her fingerprint
card, and the copy, which may be a reproduced copy of the original,
must be kept on file at the DFS for at least 3 months for Service
inspection.
(8) Application. An outside organization seeking certification as a
DFS, or a DFS seeking approval for personnel change, must submit an
application on Form I-850, Application for Certification for Designated
Fingerprinting Services, to the district director having jurisdiction
over the applicant's place of business. The application must include
the following:
(i) The required fee;
(ii) A copy of all business licenses or permits required for its
operations and if the organization is a not-for-profit entity,
documented evidence of such status;
(iii) The names and signatures of personnel who will take
fingerprints of applicants for immigration benefits;
(iv) A set of fingerprints taken by a Service employee on Form FD-
258 for each employee whose name appears on the application form
pursuant to paragraph (e)(4) of this section, and the required fee (for
each employee) for the FBI criminal history record check;
(v) A statement on Form I-850 indicating the fee, if any, it will
charge for the fingerprinting service; and
(vi) A signed statement on Form I-850 attesting that the DFS will
abide by the Service regulation governing fingerprinting and the
certification of designated fingerprinting services.
(9) Registration of police stations or military police agencies.
(i) Federal, state, or local police stations, or military police
agencies, may individually register to take fingerprints of applicants
for immigration benefits by filing a Form I-850, application for
Certification for Designated Fingerprinting Services, completing only
the relevant parts of the form. No fee or fingerprint cards need to be
submitted for their personnel charged with the fingerprinting
responsibility; nor are these personnel required to have additional
training in fingerprinting techniques and procedures. Furthermore, law
enforcement agencies registered to take fingerprints under this
paragraph are not subject to on-site inspections by the Service. The
Service will communicate with these agencies through regular liaison
channels at the local level.
(ii) A police department may request registration on behalf of all
of its subordinate stations on a single application by listing their
precinct numbers and addresses. Once registered, the Service will
include the individual police stations and military police agencies on
the Service's list of DFS organizations. The Service will make
available to these agencies the fingerprinting regulations, related
instruction material or other relevant information when appropriate.
(10) Confidentiality. A DFS is prohibited from releasing
fingerprints taken pursuant to certification, other than to the Service
or to the applicant or as otherwise provided in the Service's
regulations. Law enforcement agencies enumerated under paragraph (e)(9)
of this section are not precluded from using the fingerprints they have
collected for immigration purposes in other law enforcement efforts.
(11) Approval of application. The district director shall consider
all supporting documents submitted and may request additional
documentation as he or she may deem necessary. When the application has
been approved, the district director shall assign a certification
number to the DFS and individual ID numbers to its approved
fingerprinters. The approval will be valid for a period of 3 years and
may be renewed in accordance with paragraph (e)(13) of this section.
The district director shall notify the applicant of the approval and
include in the notice of approval the following items:
(i) Instructions on how to prepare Applicant Fingerprint Cards,
Form FD-258;
(ii) A listing of acceptable Service-issued photo-IDs; and
(iii) A statement detailing the DFS(s) responsibilities and rights,
including the renewal and revocation procedures as provided by
paragraphs (e) (12) and (13) of this section.
(12) Denial of the application. The applicant shall be notified of
the denial of an application, the reasons for the denial, and the right
to appeal to the AAO under 8 CFR part 103.
(13) Renewal (i) Subject to paragraph (e)(13)(ii) of this section,
a DFS must apply for renewal of its certification at least ninety (90)
days prior to the expiration date to prevent interruption in its
ability to provide fingerprinting services. An application for renewal
must be made on Form I-850 with the required fee and documentation as
contained in paragraph (e)(8) of this section. In considering an
application for renewal, the Service will give appropriate weight to
the volume, nature, and the substance of complaints or issues raised in
the past regarding that particular DFS and or relevant circumstances
which are made known to the Service by the general public, other
governmental or private organizations, or through Service inspections.
Also, the Service will favorably consider the absence of such
complaints or issues. Each renewal shall be valid for 3 years. Failure
to apply for renewal will result in the expiration of the outside
entity's DFS status.
(ii) The Service will certify and renew DFS(s) as long as the need
for their service exists. Following the development of an automated
fingerprint information system, the Service will determine if there is
a continued need for the DFS' services and, if so, whether they should
switch to newer technologies, such as acquiring compatible automated
fingerprinting
[[Page 28013]]
equipment. In either event, the Service shall issue a public
notification or issue a new rule, as appropriate. Nothing in this
paragraph shall preclude the Service, in its discretion, from
discontinuing the DFS certification program after the initial 3 years
or from requiring, as a condition of continued certification, that the
DFS incorporate automated fingerprinting equipment.
(14) Revocation of certification. The district director shall
revoke an approval of application for DFS status under the following
circumstances:
(i)Automatic revocation. The approval of any application is
automatically revoked if the DFS:
(A) Goes out of business prior to the expiration of the approval;
or
(B) Files a written withdrawal of the application.
(ii)Revocation on notice. The Service shall revoke on notice the
certification of a DFS which has violated the regulations governing the
fingerprinting process as established in paragraph (e) of this section.
(A) If the district director finds that a DFS has failed to meet
the required standards, he or she will issue a notice of intent to
revoke detailing reasons for the intended revocation. Within 30 days of
the receipt of the notice, the DFS may submit evidence in rebuttal or
request an inspection following corrective actions. The district
director shall cancel the notice of intent to revoke if he or she is
satisfied with the evidence presented by the DFS or the results of a
reinspection.
(B) For flagrant violations, such as failure to verify the identity
of the persons seeking fingerprinting, the district director may, in
his or her discretion, issue a suspension order and place the DFS on
immediate suspension. During the suspension period, the DFS may not
take fingerprints, and the Service will not accept fingerprints taken
by the suspended DFS. The DFS under suspension may submit a plan for
corrective action to the district director within 30 days and request a
reinspection. If the district director approves the plan, he or she
shall permit the DFS to resume fingerprinting on probation pending the
results of the reinspection and the Service will resume accepting
submitted fingerprints. The district director shall cancel the
suspension order if he or she finds the results of a reinspection
satisfactory.
(C) If the DFS fails to submit evidence of rebuttal or corrective
actions within the 30-day period, or if unsatisfactory conditions
persist at the second inspection, the district director shall notify
the DFS of the revocation decision, detailing the reasons, and of its
right to appeal.
(D) The district director shall consider all timely submitted
evidence and decide whether to revoke the DFS approval. The district
director shall also decide whether any such revocation shall preclude
accepting fingerprints taken by that DFS (or any of its offices or
employees) during some or all of the period of its certification.
(iii) If the Service's investigation uncovers evidence of material
misconduct, the Service may, in addition to revocation, refer the
matter for action pursuant to section 274C of the Act (Penalties for
Document Fraud), or 18 U.S.C. 1001 (false statement), or for other
appropriate enforcement action.
(15) Appeal of revocation of approval. The revocation of approval
may be appealed to the Service's Administrative Appeals Office (AAO).
There is no appeal from an automatic revocation.
(16) List of DFS(s). Each district office shall make available a
list of the DFS(s) it has certified to take fingerprints. Such list
shall contain the name, address, telephone number, if available, and
the fingerprinting fee charge, if any, of each DFS certified in the
district.
(17) Change of address or in fee. A DFS shall notify the Service,
on Form I-850, without an application fees, of any change(s) of address
or change(s) in the fee charged for fingerprinting at least 10 working
days before such a change takes place. The district office shall update
its DFS list, including any fingerprinting fee changes, upon receipt of
the notice of change(s).
(18) False advertising or misrepresentation by a DFS. Designated
fingerprinting services are prohibited form exploiting their DFS status
by creating the impression that they are authorized by the Service to
do more than fingerprinting. DFS(s) are prohibited from using the
Service logo on their stationery, flyers, or advertisements. When
dealing with the public or advertising for business, a DFS may refer to
itself only as ``an INS-Authorized Fingerprinting Service.'' DFS(s)
found in violation of this requirement are subject to suspension or
revocation actions pursuant to Sec. 103.2(e)(14).
4. In Sec. 103.7, paragraph (b)(1) is amended by adding to the
listing of forms, in proper numerical sequence, the entry for ``Form I-
850'' to read as follows:
Sec. 103.7 Fees.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
* * * * *
Form I-850. For filing an application for certification as a
designated fingerprinting service--$370 plus $23 for each
fingerprint check for initial certification; $200 for renewal of
certification; and $23 for each fingerprint check for adding or
replacing employees. No fee will be charged to police stations,
military police or campus police agencies registering pursuant to
Sec. 103.2(e)(9).
* * * * *
PART 229--IMMIGRATION FORMS
5. The authority citation for part 299 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103; 8 CFR part 2.
6. Section 299.1 is amended by adding to the listing of forms, in
proper numerical sequence, the entry for Forms ``I-850 and I-850A'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 299.1 Prescribed forms.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edition
Form No. date Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
I-850....................... 05-21-96 Application for Certification
for Designated Fingerprint
Services.
I-850A...................... 05-21-96 Attestation by Designated
Fingerprinting Service
Certified to Take
Fingerprints.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Section 299.5 is amended by adding to the listing of forms, in
proper numerical sequence, the entry for Forms ``I-850 and I-850A'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 299.5 Display of control numbers.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently
assigned
INS form No. INS form title OMB control
No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
I-850....................... Application for Certification 1115-0193
for Designated
Fingerprinting Services.
I-850A...................... Attestation by Designated 1115-0194
Fingerprinting Service
Certified to Take
Fingerprints.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28014]]
Dated: February 28, 1996.
Doris Meissner,
Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
[Note: Appendix A and B will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-M
[[Page 28015]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JN96.000
[[Page 28016]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JN96.001
[[Page 28017]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JN96.002
[[Page 28018]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JN96.003
[[Page 28019]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JN96.004
[[Page 28020]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04JN96.005
[FR Doc. 96-13856 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-C
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13855 Loan Guaranty: Miscellaneous
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28057-28059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13855]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 36
RIN 2900-AI01
Loan Guaranty: Miscellaneous
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
regulations governing the VA home loan program by deleting superseded
provisions, amending provisions to reflect statutory changes, deleting
provisions that have no legal effect, and updating a position title.
This document also amends the regulations by incorporating a precedent
opinion of the VA General Counsel stating that the law governing the
housing loan and specially adapted housing programs does not preclude
VA from approving a loan or grant when the property will be held in a
Family Living Trust, provided the veteran has at least an equitable
life estate in the property, the lien for any VA financing attaches to
the remainder, and the trust arrangement is valid under State law.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Judith Caden, Assistant Director
for Loan Policy (264), Loan Guaranty Service, Veterans Benefits
Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-7368.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 36.4216 is deleted since it has been
superseded by a new 38 CFR Part 44 which sets forth the current
requirements for governmentwide debarment and suspension of program
participants, including manufactured home lenders and loan holders from
the VA Loan Guaranty Program.
A recent legal opinion of the VA General Counsel, VAOPGCPREC 26-95,
published in summary form in the Federal Register on March 12, 1996, 61
FR 10063, holds that the law governing the housing loan and specially
adapted housing programs does not preclude VA from approving a loan or
grant when the property will be held in a Family Living Trust, provided
the veteran has at least an equitable life estate in the property, the
lien for any VA financing attaches to the remainder, and the trust
arrangement is valid under State law. Previous regulations specifying
the title interest a veteran must obtain in the subject property in
order to qualify for assistance under these programs did not address
property held in trust for estate-planning reasons. Accordingly,
sections 36.4253(a), 36.4350(a), 36.4402(a), and 36.4515(a) are revised
to reflect the holding in this precedent opinion.
The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 originally permitted VA
to pay a guaranty claim when the holder reported the loan as being in
default. The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, P.L. 98-369, Sec. 2512,
amended what is now codified as 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3732(a) to require that
a liquidation sale must be held before a claim may be paid. Sections
36.4316 and 36.4318 are amended to reflect these statutory changes.
Section 36.4346(g)(2) is revised to correct citation references.
Section 36.4402(a) is revised to provide that a veteran is eligible
for assistance under section 2101(a) of Chapter 21 if he or she has or
will acquire an interest in a suitable housing unit which is at least a
beneficial interest in a revocable Family Living Trust. This change
incorporates the holding of VAOPGCPREC 26-95, as discussed above.
Section 36.4404(a) is revised to note that the maximum statutory
amount of a grant to obtain specially adapted housing is $38,000.
Section 36.4404(b) is revised to update the maximum statutory amount of
a grant for a residence already adapted with special features from
$6,000 to $6,500.
The authority cited for Sec. 36.4507(c) is corrected, from 38
U.S.C. Sec. 3710(c) to Sec. 3711.
Regulations referring to covenants purporting to restrict the sale
or occupancy of property by race, color, religion, or national origin
are removed. Previous regulations (Secs. 36.4350(b)(7) and
36.4515(b)(7)) provided that the violation of such a covenant will not
render title to property unacceptable to VA. Also, under previous
Sec. 36.4510(d), a borrower's recording such a covenant may have
constituted an event of default on a VA direct loan.
In removing these provisions, VA stresses its continuing commitment
to fair housing. VA affirmatively administers its housing programs in a
manner to further the purposes and objectives of the Fair Housing Act,
42 U.S.C. Secs. 3601-3631. VA will not condone any violation of fair
housing law in its programs, and will take all necessary measures to
deal with any violation that comes to VA's attention. VA believes,
however, that present law makes these regulatory provisions
unnecessary.
The provisions relating to racially-restrictive covenants were
originally added to the regulations in response to the Supreme Court
decision in Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948). Although that
decision held that courts may not enforce racially-restrictive
covenants, it also held such privately-created covenants were not
invalid and could be effectuated by voluntary adherence.
Much has changed in the area of fair housing since 1948. The Fair
Housing Act clearly and unambiguously prohibits discrimination in the
sale, rental, or financing of housing on the basis of race, color,
religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. VA believes it is
clear that such restrictive covenants are absolutely null and void, and
any attempt to create or enforce such a covenant would be unlawful.
Since these covenants have absolutely no effect, VA sees no reason to
provide by regulation that violations of such purported restrictions
may be ignored in considering whether or not a veteran has good and
marketable title. VA does not believe any knowledgeable attorney or
title professional would consider the existence of such an obsolete,
unlawful covenant in reviewing title.
Case law also holds that recorders of deeds may not accept for
recording new racially restrictive covenants. Accordingly, VA sees no
purpose in making the recording of such a covenant an event of default.
[[Page 28058]]
Finally, all references to the Chief Benefits Director in Part 36
are changed to refer to this official's new title, the Under Secretary
for Benefits.
This final rule consists of interpretive rules, restatements of
statute, updating a position title, and nonsubstantive changes, and,
therefore, is not subject to the notice-and-comment and effective-date
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553.
The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612. This final rule would not cause a significant effect on any
entities since it consists of interpretive rules, restatements of
statute, updating a position title, and nonsubstantive changes.
Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this amendment is exempt from
the initial and final regulatory-flexibility analysis requirements of
Secs. 603 and 604.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program numbers are
64.106, 64.114, 64.118 and 64.119.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 36
Condominiums, Handicapped, Housing loan programs--housing and
community development, Veterans.
Approved: May 24, 1996.
Jesse Brown,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 38 CFR part 36 is amended
as set forth below.
PART 36--LOAN GUARANTY
1. The authority citation for part 36 Secs. 36.4201 through 36.4287
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 36.4201 through 36.4287 issued under 38
U.S.C. 501, 3701-3704, 3707, 3710-3714, 3719, 3720, 3729, unless
otherwise noted.
Sec. 36.4216 [Removed]
2. Section 36.4216 is removed.
Sec. 36.4220 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 36.4220, paragraph (a) introductory text is amended by
removing ``Chief Benefits Director'' both times it appears and adding,
in its place, ``Under Secretary for Benefits''.
Sec. 36.4221 [Amended]
4. In Sec. 36.4221 paragraphs (b) and (c) are amended by removing
``Chief Benefits Director'' each time it appears and adding, in its
place, ``Under Secretary for Benefits''.
Sec. 36.4226 [Amended]
5. In Sec. 36.4226, paragraphs (d), (f) and (g) are amended by
removing ``Chief Benefits Director'' and adding, in its place ``Under
Secretary for Benefits''.
6. In Sec. 36.4253, paragraphs (a)(2) and (e) are amended by
removing ``Chief Benefits Director'' and adding, in its place, ``Under
Secretary for Benefits''. Paragraph (a)(3) is revised, and a new
paragraph (a)(4) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 36.4253 Title and lien requirements.
(a) * * *
* * * * *
(3) A life estate, provided that the remainder and reversionary
interests are subjected to the lien; or
(4) A beneficial interest in a revocable Family Living Trust that
ensures that the veteran, or veteran and spouse, have an equitable life
estate, provided the lien attaches to any remainder interest and the
trust arrangement is valid under State law.
* * * * *
Sec. 36.4254 [Amended]
7. In Sec. 36.4254, paragraph (a)(8) is amended by removing ``Chief
Benefits Director'' and adding, in its place ``Under Secretary for
Benefits''.
Sec. 36.4283 [Amended]
8. In Sec. 36.4283, paragraph (k) is amended by removing ``Chief
Benefits Director'' and adding, in its place, ``Under Secretary for
Benefits''.
9. The authority citation for part 36 36.4300 through 36.4375 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 36.4300 through 36.4375 issued under 38
U.S.C. 101, 501, 3701-3704, 3710, 3712-3714, 3720, 3729, 3732,
unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 36.4312 [Amended]
10. In Sec. 36.4312, paragraph (d)(1)(ix) and (d)(7)(iv) are
amended by removing ``Chief Benefits Director'' and adding, in its
place, ``Under Secretary for Benefits''.
Sec. 36.4316 [Amended]
11. In Sec. 36.4316, paragraph (c) is removed, and paragraph (a) is
amended by removing ``, submit a claim for payment of the guaranty. The
holder may also then or thereafter'', and paragraph (b) is amended by
removing ``A claim for the guaranty, or'' and revising ``the'' to read:
``The''.
12. In Sec. 36.4318, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 36.4318 Refunding of loans in default.
(a) Upon receiving a notice of default or a notice under
Sec. 36.4317, the Secretary may within 30 days thereafter require the
holder upon penalty of otherwise losing the guaranty or insurance to
transfer and assign the loan and the security therefore to the
Secretary or to another designated by the Secretary upon receipt of
payment in full of the balance of the indebtedness remaining unpaid to
the date of such assignment. Such assignment may be made without
recourse but the transferor shall not thereby be relieved from the
provisions of Sec. 36.4325.
* * * * *
13. In Sec. 36.4320, paragraph (j) is amended by removing ``Chief
Benefits Director'' and adding, in its place, ``Under Secretary for
Benefits''; paragraph (h)(2) is revised, and a new authority citation
is added at the end of the section to read as follows:
Sec. 36.4320 Sale of security.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(2) The holder may cancel any insurance in force when the holder
acquires the property, provided the holder has obtained the prior
approval of the Secretary. Coincident with the notice of election to
convey or transfer the property to the Secretary or with the
acquisition of the property by the holder, following such notice,
whichever is later, the holder shall obtain endorsements on all such
insurance policies naming the Secretary as an assured, as his/her
interest may appear. Such insurance policies shall be forwarded to the
Secretary at the time of the conveyance or transfer of the property to
the Secretary or as soon after that time as feasible.
* * * * *
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3732, Pub. L. 100-527)
Sec. 36.4335 [Amended]
14. In Sec. 36.4335, the introductory text is amended by removing
``Chief Benefits Director'' and adding, in its place, ``Under Secretary
for Benefits''.
Sec. 36.4342 [Amended]
15. In Sec. 36.4342, paragraphs (b) and (c) are amended by removing
``Chief Benefits Director'' each time it appears and adding, in its
place ``Under Secretary for Benefits''.
Sec. 36.4343 [Amended]
16. In Sec. 36.4343, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ``Chief
Benefits Director'' and adding, in its place, ``Under Secretary for
Benefits''.
Sec. 36.4346 [Amended]
17. In Sec. 36.4346, paragraph (g)(2) is amended by removing
``36.4331'' and adding, in its place, ``44.205 and 44.305''.
[[Page 28059]]
Sec. 36.4349 [Amended]
18. In Sec. 36.4349, paragraphs (d), (f), and (g) are amended by
removing ``Chief Benefits Director'' and adding, in its place, ``Under
Secretary for Benefits''.
19. In Sec. 36.4350, paragraph (a)(2) is amended by removing
``Chief Benefits Director'' and adding, in its place, ``Under Secretary
for Benefits''; paragraph (b)(7) is removed; and paragraph (b)(8) is
redesignated as paragraph (b)(7). Paragraph (a)(3) is amended by
removing ``.'' and adding, in its place, ``; or'', and a new paragraph
(a)(4) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 36.4350 Estate of veteran in real property.
(a) * * *
(4) A beneficial interest in a revocable Family Living Trust that
ensures that the veteran, or veteran and spouse, have an equitable life
estate, provided the lien attaches to any remainder interest and the
trust arrangement is valid under State law.
* * * * *
Sec. 36.4352 [Amended]
20. Section 36.4352 is amended by removing ``Chief Benefits
Director'' and adding, in its place, ``Under Secretary for Benefits''.
Sec. 36.4364 [Amended]
21. In Sec. 36.4364, paragraph (f) is amended by removing ``Chief
Benefits Director'' and adding, in its place, ``Under Secretary for
Benefits''.
Sec. 36.4393 [Amended]
22. In Sec. 36.4393, paragraphs (g) and (h) are amended by removing
``Chief Benefits Director'' each time it appears and adding, in its
place, ``Under Secretary for Benefits''.
23. The authority citation for part 36 36.4400 through 36.4411
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 36.4400 through 36.4411 issued under 72
Stat. 1114, 1168, as amended (38 U.S.C. 501, 2101), unless otherwise
noted.
24. In Sec. 36.4402, paragraph (a)(4)(iii) is amended by removing
``Chief Benefits Director'' and adding, in its place, ``Under Secretary
for Benefits''. Paragraph (a)(4)(iii) is further amended by removing
``;'' and adding, in its place, ``, or''; and a new paragraph
(a)(4)(iv) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 36.4402 Eligibility.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(iv) A beneficial interest in a revocable Family Living Trust that
ensures that the veteran, or veteran and spouse, have an equitable life
estate, provided the trust arrangement is valid under State law;
* * * * *
25. In Sec. 36.4404, paragraphs (a) introductory text, (b)(2), and
the authority citation are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 36.4404 Computation of cost.
(a) Computation of cost of housing unit. Under section 2101(a) of
chapter 21, for the purpose of computing the amount of benefits payable
to a veteran-beneficiary, there may be included in the total cost to
the veteran the following amount, not to exceed $38,000:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) $6,500.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 2102(a), (b))
Sec. 36.4408 [Amended]
26. In Sec. 36.4408, paragraph (b) is amended by removing ``Chief
Benefits Director'' and adding, in its place, ``Under Secretary for
Benefits''.
27. The authority citation for part 36 Secs. 36.4500 through
36.4600 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 36.4500 through 36.4600 issued under 38
U.S.C. 501, unless otherwise noted.
28. In Sec. 36.4507, paragraph (b)(2) is amended by removing
``Chief Benefits Director, and adding, in its place, ``Under Secretary
for Benefits'', and the authority citation following paragraph (c) is
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 36.4507 Refinancing of mortgage or other lien indebtedness.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3711)
* * * * *
Sec. 36.4510 [Removed]
29. In Sec. 36.4510, paragraph (d) is removed.
30. In Sec. 36.4515, paragraph (a)(2) is amended by removing
``Chief Benefits Director'' and adding, in its place, ``Under Secretary
for Benefits''; and by removing paragraph (b)(7); and by redesignating
paragraph (b)(8) as paragraph (b)(7). Paragraph (a)(3) is amended by
removing ``.'' in the last sentence, and adding, in its place, ``;
or''; and a new paragraph (a)(4) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 36.4515 Estate of veteran in real property.
(a) * * *
* * * * *
(4) A beneficial interest in a revocable Family Living Trust that
ensures that the veteran, or veteran and spouse, have an equitable life
estate, provided the lien attaches to any remainder interest and the
trust arrangement is valid under State law.
* * * * *
Sec. 36.4516 [Amended]
31. In Sec. 36.4516, paragraph (c) is amended by removing ``Chief
Benefits Director'' and adding, in its place, ``Under Secretary for
Benefits''.
Sec. 36.4518 [Amended]
32. Section 36.4518 is amended by removing ``Chief Benefits
Director'' and adding, in its place, ``Under Secretary for Benefits''.
Sec. 36.4520 [Amended]
33. In Sec. 36.4520, paragraph (b) is amended by removing ``Chief
Benefits Director'' both times it appears and adding, in its place,
``Under Secretary for Benefits''.
Sec. 36.4600 [Amended]
34. In Sec. 36.4600, paragraphs (g)(2) and (j) are amended by
removing ``Chief Benefits Director'' and adding, in its place, ``Under
Secretary for Benefits''.
[FR Doc. 96-13855 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13853 Papayas Grown in Hawaii; Assessment Rate
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28000-28002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13853]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 928
[Docket No. FV96-928-1-IFR]
Papayas Grown in Hawaii; Assessment Rate
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Interim final rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This interim final rule establishes an assessment rate for the
Papaya Administrative Committee (Committee) under Marketing Order No.
928 for the 1996-97 and subsequent fiscal periods. The Committee is
responsible for local administration of the marketing order which
regulates the handling of papayas grown in Hawaii. Authorization to
assess papaya handlers enables the Committee to incur expenses that are
reasonable and necessary to administer the program.
DATES: Effective on July 1, 1996. Comments received by July 5, 1996,
will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this rule. Comments must be sent in triplicate to the Docket
Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room
2523-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456, FAX (202) 720-5698. Comments should
reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue
of the Federal Register and will be available for public inspection in
the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Kate Nelson, Marketing Assistant,
California Marketing Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS,
USDA, 2202 Monterey Street, suite 102B, Fresno, California 93721,
telephone (209) 487-5901, FAX (209) 487-5901, or Charles L. Rush,
Marketing Specialist, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and
Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room 2523-S, Washington,
DC 20090-6456, telephone (202) 720-5127, FAX (202) 720-5698.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing
Agreement No. 928 and Order No. 928, both as amended (7 CFR part 928),
regulating the handling of papayas grown in Hawaii, hereinafter
referred to as the ``order.'' The marketing agreement and order are
effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the ``Act.''
The Department of Agriculture (Department) is issuing this rule in
conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, handlers of
papayas grown in Hawaii are subject to assessments. Funds to administer
the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the
assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable
papayas beginning July 1, 1996, and continuing until amended,
suspended, or terminated. This rule will not preempt any State or local
laws,
[[Page 28001]]
regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable
conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a
petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance
with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted
therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on
the petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the
petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States
in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or
her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the
Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not
later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the
economic impact of this rule on small entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in
that they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 400 producers of papayas in the production
area and approximately 60 handlers subject to regulation under the
marketing order. Small agricultural producers have been defined by the
Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.601) as those having annual
receipts less than $500,000, and small agricultural service firms are
defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $5,000,000. The
majority of papaya producers and handlers may be classified as small
entities.
The papaya marketing order provides authority for the Committee,
with the approval of the Department, to formulate an annual budget of
expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the
program. The members of the Committee are producers and handlers of
papayas grown in Hawaii. They are familiar with the Committee's needs
and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are
thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment
rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public
meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to
participate and provide input.
The Committee met on April 26, 1996, and unanimously recommended
1996-97 expenditures of $485,300 and an assessment rate of $0.0059 per
pound of papayas. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were
$435,800.
The assessment rate of $0.0059 is the same as last year's
established rate. Major expenditures recommended by the Committee for
the 1996-97 year include $160,000 for the marketing and promotion
program, $130,000 for research and development, and $67,000 for
salaries. Budgeted expenses for these items in 1995-96 were $165,500,
$115,000, and $67,000 respectively.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by
dividing anticipated expenses by expected shipments of papayas grown in
Hawaii. Papaya shipments for the year are estimated at 30 million
pounds which should provide $177,000 in assessment income. Income
derived from handler assessments, the Hawaii Department of Agriculture,
the USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service, the County of Hawaii, and the
Japanese Inspection program, along with interest income and funds from
the Committee's authorized reserve, will be adequate to cover budgeted
expenses. Funds in the reserve will be kept within the maximum
permitted by the order.
While this rule will impose some costs on handlers, the costs are
in the form of uniform assessments on all handlers. Some of the costs
may be passed on to producers.
However, these costs should be offset by the benefits derived by
the operation of the marketing order.
Based on available information, the Agricultural Marketing Service
has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in
effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by the
Secretary upon recommendation and information submitted by the
Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate is effective for an indefinite
period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each
fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider
recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and
times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or the
Department. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested
persons may express their views at these meetings. The Department will
evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to
determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed.
Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's
1996-97 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods will be reviewed
and, as appropriate, approved by the Department.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including
the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other
available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as
hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of
the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good
cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public
interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into
effect, because: (1) The Committee needs to have sufficient funds to
pay its expenses which are incurred on a continuous basis; (2) the
1996-97 fiscal period begins on July 1, 1996, and the marketing order
requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal period apply to
all assessable papayas handled during such fiscal period; (3) handlers
are aware of this action which was unanimously recommended by the
Committee at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate
actions issued in past years; and (4) this interim final rule provides
a 30-day comment period, and all comments timely received will be
considered prior to finalization of this rule.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 928
Marketing agreements, Papayas, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 928 is
amended as follows:
PART 928--PAPAYAS GROWN IN HAWAII
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 928 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
2. Section 928.226 is added to read as follows:
Note: This section will appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Sec. 928.226 Assessment rate.
On and after July 1, 1996, an assessment rate of $0.0059 per pound
is
[[Page 28002]]
established for papayas grown in Hawaii.
Dated: May 29, 1996.
Robert C. Keeney,
Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-13853 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13843 Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Aggregate Species in the Rock Sole/Flathead Sole/``Other Flatfish'' Fishery Category by Vessels Using Trawl Gear
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28071-28072]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13843]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 675
[Docket No. 960129019-6019-01; I.D. 052896H]
Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area;
Aggregate Species in the Rock Sole/Flathead Sole/``Other Flatfish''
Fishery Category by Vessels Using Trawl Gear
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Modification of a closure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is opening directed fishing for aggregate species in the
rock sole/flathead sole/``other flatfish'' fishery category by vessels
using trawl gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area
(BSAI). This action is necessary to fully utilize the second seasonal
bycatch allowance of Pacific halibut apportioned to the trawl rock
sole/flathead sole/``other flatfish'' fishery category in the BSAI.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), June 3, 1996,
until 12 midnight, A.l.t., December 31, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew N. Smoker, 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. 675.21(c)(1)(iii), the Director, Alaska
Region, NMFS (Regional Director), determined that the second seasonal
bycatch allowance of Pacific halibut apportioned to the trawl rock
sole/flathead sole/``other flatfish'' fishery in the BSAI had been
caught. Therefore, NMFS prohibited directed fishing for species in the
rock sole/flathead sole/``other flatfish'' fishery category by vessels
using trawl gear in the BSAI effective April 13, 1996 (61 FR 16883,
April 18, 1996) to prevent exceeding the second seasonal bycatch
allowance of Pacific halibut apportioned to that fishery.
The Regional Director has determined that as of May 11, 1996, 50
metric tons of halibut mortality remain in the second seasonal bycatch
allowance. Therefore, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is
opening directed fishing for species in the rock
[[Page 28072]]
sole/flathead sole/``other flatfish'' fishery category by vessels using
trawl gear in the BSAI.
All other closures remain in full force and effect.
Classification
This action is taken under 50 CFR 675.20 and is exempt from review
under E.O. 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: May 29, 1996.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-13843 Filed 5-30-96; 11:39 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13842 Prevailing Rate Systems; Abolishment of Philadelphia, PA, Nonappropriated Fund Wage Area
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27995]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13842]
========================================================================
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. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 27995]]
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 532
RIN 3206-AH22
Prevailing Rate Systems; Abolishment of Philadelphia, PA,
Nonappropriated Fund Wage Area
AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a final
rule to abolish the Philadelphia, PA, nonappropriated fund (NAF)
Federal Wage System (FWS) wage area and redefine the five counties
having continuing FWS employment as areas of application to nearby NAF
wage areas for pay-setting purposes.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paul Shields, (202) 606-2848.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 14, 1995, OPM published an
interim rule to abolish the Philadelphia, PA, nonappropriated fund
(NAF) Federal Wage System wage area and redefine the five counties
having continuing FWS employment as areas of application to nearby NAF
wage areas for pay-setting purposes. Philadelphia County and Chester
County, PA, are being redefined to the Montgomery, PA, wage area. New
Castle County, DE; Cape May, NJ; and Salem County, NJ, are being
redefined to the Burlington, NJ, wage area. The remaining Philadelphia
wage area counties (Camden and Cloucester, NJ) have no FWS employees
and are being deleted. The interim rule provided a 30-day period for
public comment. OPM received one comment during the comment period
suggesting that the Montgomery, PA, survey area be expanded to include
Philadelphia County or that a differential be paid to workers employed
in Philadelphia County. After another detailed review, OPM found that
it would not be feasible for the Montgomery County survey host activity
to support a survey expanded to include an additional large urban area
like Philadelphia County. Hence, OPM concurs with the findings of FPRAC
and does not agree that the Montgomery survey area should be expanded.
Regarding the suggestion of a differential, OPM has provided directly
to the sender of the suggestion guidance on how agencies may request
wage flexibilities under current regulations for special rates, special
schedules, and increased minimum rates to counter recruitment or
retention difficulties. Therefore, the interim rule is being adopted as
a final rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that these regulations will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they
will affect only Federal agencies and employees.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information,
Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
Accordingly, under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 5343, the interim rule
amending 5 CFR part 532 published on November 14, 1995 (60 FR 57145),
is adopted as final without any changes.
Office of Personnel Management.
Lorraine A. Green,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. 96-13842 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13840 Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of Oneida, NY, Nonappropriated Fund Wage Area
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27995-27996]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13840]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 532
RIN 3206-AH41
Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of Oneida, NY,
Nonappropriated Fund Wage Area
AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing an interim
rule to abolish the Oneida, NY, nonappropriated fund (NAF) Federal Wage
System (FWS) wage area and to establish a new Jefferson, NY, NAF wage
area with a survey area consisting of Jefferson County--currently an
unsurveyed county in the Oneida wage area. The Oneida wage area is
presently composed of one survey area county (Oneida) and nine area of
application counties (Albany, Clinton, Jefferson, Onondaga, Ontario,
Schenectady, Saratoga, Seneca, and Steuben). After this change, a new
wage area, Jefferson, NY, will include seven of these counties, with
Jefferson designated as the survey area and Albany, Oneida, Onondaga,
Ontario, Schenectady, and Steuben designated as areas of application.
Clinton, Saratoga, and Seneca, which have no FWS employees, will be
deleted.
DATES: This interim rule becomes effective on June 6, 1996. Comments
must be received by July 5, 1996. Employees currently paid rates from
the Oneida, NY, NAF wage schedule will continue to be paid from that
schedule until their conversion to the Jefferson, NY, NAF wage schedule
on May 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to Donald J. Winstead, Assistant
Director for Compensation Policy, Human Resources Systems Service,
Office of Personnel Management, Room 6H31, 1900 E Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20415, or FAX: (202) 606-2394.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Shields, (202) 606-2848.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because the closing of the Oneida, NY,
nonappropriated fund (NAF) wage area host activity, Griffiss Air Force
Base, left Oneida County without an activity having the capability to
conduct a wage survey, the Department of Defense requested that the
Oneida wage area be abolished and that a new Jefferson, NY, NAF wage
area be established with a survey area consisting of Jefferson County--
currently an unsurveyed county in the Oneida wage area. The Oneida wage
area is presently composed of one survey area county (Oneida) and nine
area of application counties (Albany, Clinton, Jefferson, Onondaga,
Ontario, Schenectady, Saratoga, Seneca, and Steuben).
The new wage area being established by this interim rule,
Jefferson, NY, will include seven of these counties, with Jefferson
designated as the survey area and Albany, Oneida, Onondaga, Ontario,
Schenectady, and Steuben
[[Page 27996]]
designated as areas of application. Jefferson County meets the minimum
requirements to be the survey area. Fort Drum, located in Jefferson
County, has 181 NAF Federal Wage System employees and has the
capability to conduct the survey. Jefferson County also meets the other
regulatory requirement of a minimum of 1,800 private enterprise
employees in establishments within survey specifications (with
approximately 16,970 such employees). Clinton, Saratoga, and Seneca,
which have no FWS employees, will be deleted.
As required in regulation, 5 CFR 532.219, the following criteria
were considered in redefining these wage areas:
(1) Proximity of largest activity in each county;
(2) Transportation facilities and commuting patterns; and
(3) Similarities of the counties in:
(i) Overall population;
(ii) Private employment in major industry categories; and
(iii) Kinds and sizes of private industrial establishments.
The criteria strongly favor redefinition to the proposed Jefferson
survey area for the closest two counties to be redefined, Oneida and
Onondaga. For the four more distant counties to the southwest (Ontario
and Steuben) and to the southeast (Schenectady and Albany), the
regulatory criteria are mixed, with Jefferson first-ranked on either
the transportation and commuting patterns criterion or the similarities
in population and private industry criterion. Although consideration
was given to the possible redefinition of these four counties to the
closer Niagara, New York, or Hampden, Massachusetts, areas, the mixed
nature of these findings supports this redefinition. Other relevant
factors weighed include the continuity of the historical composition of
the old wage area and a natural affinity of these New York counties
having continuing NAF employment. The willingness of DOD and its wage
committee to establish a new wage area and conduct a new survey
furthers the concepts of wage rates based on prevailing local rates and
of effective partnership in this period of wage area realignments as
base closures shrink the NAF workforce.
The full-scale surveys will continue to be ordered in March of even
numbered fiscal years--e.g., in March 1996. The Federal Prevailing Rate
Advisory Committee reviewed this recommendation and by consensus
recommended approval.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), I find that good cause exists
for waiving the general notice of proposed rulemaking. Also, pursuant
to section 553(d)(3) of title 5, United States Code, I find that good
cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days. The
notice is being waived and the regulation is being made effective in
less than 30 days because preparations for the 1996 Jefferson, NY, NAF
wage area survey must begin immediately.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that these regulations will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they
affect only Federal agencies and employees.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information,
Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
Office of Personnel Management.
Lorraine A. Green,
Deputy Director.
Accordingly, OPM is amending 5 CFR part 532 as follows:
PART 532--PREVAILING RATE SYSTEMS
1. The authority citation for part 532 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; Sec. 532.707 also issued under 5
U.S.C. 552.
Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 532 [Amended]
2. In appendix B to subpart B, the listing for the State of New
York is amended by removing the entry for Oneida and adding in
alphabetical order a new entry of Jefferson with a beginning month of
survey of ``March'' and a fiscal year of full-scale survey of ``Even.''
3. Appendix D to subpart B is amended by removing the wage area
list for Oneida, New York, and by adding in alphabetical order a new
list for Jefferson, New York, to read as follows:
Appendix D to Subpart B of Part 532--Nonappropriated Fund Wage and
Survey Areas
* * * * *
New York
* * * * *
Jefferson Survey Area
New York
Jefferson
Area of Application. Survey Area Plus
New York
Albany
Oneida
Onondaga
Ontario
Schenectady
Steuben
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-13840 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13839 Prevailing Rate Systems; Abolishment of Franklin, OH, Nonappropriated Fund Wage Area
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27996-27997]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13839]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 532
RIN 3206-AH29
Prevailing Rate Systems; Abolishment of Franklin, OH,
Nonappropriated Fund Wage Area
AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a final
rule to abolish the Franklin, OH, nonappropriated fund (NAF) Federal
Wage System (FWS) wage area and redefine the five counties having
continuing FWS employment as areas of application to the Greene-
Montgomery, OH, NAF wage area for pay-setting purposes. Those five
counties include three Ohio counties (Franklin, Licking, and Ross) and
two West Virginia counties (Raleigh and Wayne). The remaining Franklin
wage area county (Cabell) has no FWS employment and is being deleted.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paul Shields, (202) 606-2848.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 31, 1996, OPM published an
interim rule to abolish the Franklin, OH, nonappropriated fund (NAF)
Federal Wage System wage area and redefine the five counties having
continuing FWS employment as areas of application to the Green-
Montgomery, OH, NAF wage area for pay-setting purposes. Those five
counties include three Ohio counties (Franklin, Licking, and Ross) and
two West Virginia counties (Raleigh and Wayne). The remaining Franklin
wage area county (Cabell) has no FWS employment and is being deleted.
The interim rule provided a 30-day period for public comment. OPM
received no comments during the comment period. Therefore, the interim
rule is being adopted as a final rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that these regulations will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they
will affect only Federal agencies and employees.
[[Page 27997]]
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information,
Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
Accordingly, under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 5343, the interim rule
amending 5 CFR part 532 published on January 31, 1996 (61 FR 3175), is
adopted as final without any changes.
Office of Personnel Management.
Lorraine A. Green,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. 96-13839 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13833 Pork Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Order Increase in Importer Assessments
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28002-28003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13833]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 1230
[No. LS-96-001]
Pork Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Order--
Increase in Importer Assessments
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Pork Promotion, Research, and Consumer
Information Act (Act) of 1985 and the Order issued thereunder, this
final rule increases the amount of the assessment per pound due on
imported pork and pork products to reflect an increase in the 1995
five-market average price for domestic barrows and gilts. This action
brings the equivalent market value of the live animals from which such
imported pork and pork products were derived in line with the market
values of domestic porcine animals. These changes will facilitate the
continued collection of assessments on imported porcine animals, pork,
and pork products.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ralph L. Tapp, Chief, Marketing
Programs Branch, 202/720-1115.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Agriculture (Department)
is issuing this final rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. This is not intended to have a retroactive
effect. The Act states that the statute is intended to occupy the field
of promotion and consumer education involving pork and pork products
and of obtaining funds thereof from pork producers and that the
regulation of such activity (other than a regulation or requirement
relating to a matter of public health or the provision of State or
local funds for such activity) that is in addition to or different from
the Act may not be imposed by a State.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under Sec. 1625 of the Act, a
person subject to an order may file a petition with the Secretary
stating that such order, a provision of such order or an obligation
imposed in connection with such order is not in accordance with law;
and requesting a modification of the order or an exemption from the
order. Such person is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the
petition. After the hearing, the Secretary would rule on the petition.
The Act provides that the district court of the United States in the
district in which such person resides or does business has jurisdiction
to review the Secretary's determination, if a complaint is filed not
later than 20 days after the date such person receives notice of such
determination.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA) (5 United States Code(U.S.C.) 601 et seq.), the Agricultural
Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this
final action on small entities. The effect of the Order upon small
entities was discussed in the September 5, 1986, issue of the Federal
Register (51 FR 31898), and it was determined that the Order would not
have a significant effect upon a substantial number of small entities.
Many of the estimated 200 importers may be classified as small
entities. This final rule increases the amount of assessments on
imported pork and pork products subject to assessment by two-hundredths
of a cent per pound, or as expressed in cents per kilogram, four-
hundredths of a cent per kilogram. Adjusting the assessments on
imported pork and pork products would result in an estimated increase
in assessments of $104,000 over a 12-month period. Accordingly, the
Administrator of AMS has determined that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Act (7 U.S.C. 4801-4819) approved December 23, 1985, authorized
the establishment of a national pork promotion, research, and consumer
information program. The program was funded by an initial assessment
rate of 0.25 percent of the market value of all porcine animals
marketed in the United States and an equivalent amount of assessment on
imported porcine animals, pork, and pork products. However, that rate
was increased to 0.35 percent in 1991 (56 FR 51635) and to 0.45 percent
effective September 3, 1995 (60 FR 29963). The final Order establishing
a pork promotion, research, and consumer information program was
published in the September 5, 1986, issue of the Federal Register (51
FR 31898; as corrected, at 51 FR 36383 and amended at 53 FR 1909, 53 FR
30243, 56 FR 4, 56 FR 51635, and 60 FR 29963) and assessments began on
November 1, 1986.
The Order requires importers of porcine animals to pay the U.S.
Customs Service (USCS), upon importation, the assessment of 0.45
percent of the animal's declared value and importers of pork and pork
products to pay USCS, upon importation, the assessment of 0.45 percent
of the market value of the live porcine animals from which such pork
and pork products were produced. This final rule increases the
assessments on all of the imported pork and pork products subject to
assessment as published in the Federal Register as a final rule June 7,
1995, and effective September 3, 1995; (60 FR 29965). This increase is
consistent with the increase in the annual average price of domestic
barrows and gilts for calendar year 1995 as reported by USDA, AMS,
Livestock and Grain Market News (LGMN) Branch. This increase in
assessments will make the equivalent market value of the live porcine
animal from which the imported pork and pork products were derived
reflect the recent increase in the market value of domestic porcine
animals, thereby promoting comparability between importer and domestic
assessments. This final rule will not change the current assessment
rate of 0.45 percent of the market value.
The methodology for determining the per pound amounts for imported
pork and pork products was described in the Supplementary Information
accompanying the Order and published in the September 5, 1986, Federal
Register at 51 FR 31901. The weight of imported pork and pork products
is converted to a carcass weight equivalent by utilizing conversion
factors which are published in the Department's Statistical Bulletin
No. 697 ``Conversion Factors and Weights and Measures.'' These
conversion factors take into account the removal of bone, weight lost
in cooking or other processing, and the nonpork components of pork
products. Secondly, the carcass weight equivalent is converted to a
live animal equivalent weight by dividing the carcass weight equivalent
by 70 percent, which is the average dressing percentage of porcine
animals in the United States. Thirdly, the equivalent value of the live
porcine animal is determined by multiplying the live animal equivalent
weight by an annual average market price for barrows and gilts as
reported by USDA, AMS, LGMN Branch. This average price is published on
a yearly basis during the month of January in LGMN Branch's publication
``Livestock, Meat, and Wool Weekly Summary and Statistics.'' Finally,
the equivalent value is multiplied by the applicable assessment rate of
0.45 percent due on imported
[[Page 28003]]
pork and pork products. The end result is expressed in an amount per
pound for each type of pork or pork product. To determine the amount
per kilogram for pork and pork products subject to assessment under the
Act and Order, the cent per pound assessments are multiplied by a
metric conversion factor 2.2046 and carried to the sixth decimal.
The formula in the preamble for the Order at 51 FR 31901
contemplated that it would be necessary to recalculate the equivalent
live animal value of imported pork and pork products to reflect changes
in the annual average price of domestic barrows and gilts to maintain
equity of assessments between domestic porcine animals and imported
pork and pork products.
The average annual market price increased from $39.57 in 1994 to
$41.76 in 1995, an increase of about 6 percent. This increase will
result in a corresponding increase in assessments for all HTS numbers
listed in the table in Sec. 1230.110, 60 FR 29965; June 7, 1995, of an
amount equal to two-hundredths of a cent per pound, or as expressed in
cents per kilogram, four-hundredths of a cent per kilogram. Based on
the most recent available Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census,
data on the volume of imported pork and pork products, the increase in
assessment amounts would result in an estimated $104,000 increase in
assessments over a 12-month period.
On March 22, 1996, AMS published in the Federal Register (61 FR
11776) a proposed rule which would increase the per pound assessment on
imported pork and pork products consistent with increases in the 1995
average prices of domestic barrows and gilts to provide comparability
between imported and domestic assessments. The proposal was published
with a request for comments by April 22, 1996. No comments were
received.
Accordingly, this final rule establishes the new per-pound and per-
kilogram assessments on imported pork and pork products.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1230
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Agricultural
research, Marketing agreement, Meat and meat products, Pork and pork
products.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR Part 1230 is
amended as follows:
PART 1230--PORK PROMOTION, RESEARCH, AND CONSUMER INFORMATION
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR Part 1230 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 4801-4819.
Subpart B--[Amended]
2. In Subpart B--Rules and Regulations, Sec. 1230.110 is revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 1230.110 Assessments on imported pork and pork products.
(a) The following HTS categories of imported live porcine animals
are subject to assessment at the rate specified.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live porcine
animals Assessment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0103.10.0000... 0.45 percent Customs Entered Value.
0103.91.0000... 0.45 percent Customs Entered Value.
0103.92.0000... 0.45 percent Customs Entered Value.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) The following HTS categories of imported pork and pork products
are subject to assessment at the rates specified.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment
Pork and pork products ---------------------
Cents/lb Cents/kg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0203.11.0000...................................... .27 .507058
0203.12.1010...................................... .27 .507058
0203.12.1020...................................... .27 .507058
0203.12.9010...................................... .27 .507058
0203.12.9020...................................... .27 .507058
0203.19.2010...................................... .31 .573196
0203.19.2090...................................... .31 .573196
0203.19.4010...................................... .27 .507058
0203.19.4090...................................... .27 .507058
0203.21.0000...................................... .27 .507058
0203.22.1000...................................... .27 .507058
0203.22.9000...................................... .27 .507058
0203.29.2000...................................... .31 .573196
0203.29.4000...................................... .27 .507058
0206.30.0000...................................... .27 .507058
0206.41.0000...................................... .27 .507058
0206.49.0000...................................... .27 .507058
0210.11.0010...................................... .27 .507058
0210.11.0020...................................... .27 .507058
0210.12.0020...................................... .27 .507058
0210.12.0040...................................... .27 .507058
0210.19.0010...................................... .31 .573196
0210.19.0090...................................... .31 .573196
1601.00.2010...................................... .37 .683426
1601.00.2090...................................... .37 .683426
1602.41.2020...................................... .41 .749564
1602.41.2040...................................... .41 .749564
1602.41.9000...................................... .27 .507058
1602.42.2020...................................... .41 .749564
1602.42.2040...................................... .41 .749564
1602.42.4000...................................... .27 .507058
1602.49.2000...................................... .37 .683426
1602.49.4000...................................... .31 .573196
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: May 28, 1996.
Kenneth C. Clayton,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-13833 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13832 Tobacco Inspection; Growers' Referendum Results
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27997-27998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13832]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 29
[Docket No. TB-95-18]
Tobacco Inspection; Growers' Referendum Results
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains the determination with respect to the
referendum on the merger of Sanford and Carthage-Aberdeen, North
Carolina, to become the consolidated market of Sanford-Carthage-
Aberdeen. A mail referendum was conducted during the period of April
15-19, 1996, among tobacco growers who sold tobacco on these markets in
1995 to determine producer approval/disapproval of the designation of
these markets as one consolidated market. Growers approved the merger.
Therefore, for the 1996 and succeeding flue-cured marketing seasons,
the Sanford and Carthage-Aberdeen, North Carolina, tobacco markets
shall be designated as and called Sanford-Carthage-Aberdeen. The
regulations are amended to reflect this new designated market.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Fial, Assistant to the
Director, Tobacco Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, United
States Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-
6456; telephone number (202) 260-0151.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice was published in the March 18,
1996, issue of the Federal Register (61 FR, 10903) announcing that a
referendum would be conducted among active flue-cured producers who
sold tobacco on either Sanford or Carthage-Aberdeen, during the 1995
season to ascertain if such producers favored the consolidation.
The notice of referendum announced the determination by the
Secretary that the consolidated market of Sanford-Carthage-Aberdeen,
North Carolina, would be designated as a flue-cured tobacco auction
market and receive mandatory Federal grading of tobacco sold at auction
for the 1996 and succeeding seasons, subject to the results of the
referendum. The determination was based on the evidence and arguments
presented at a public hearing held in Sanford, North Carolina, on
November 7, 1995, pursuant to applicable provisions of the regulations
issued under the Tobacco Inspection Act, as amended. The referendum was
held in accordance with the provisions of the Tobacco Inspection Act,
as amended (7 U.S.C. 511d) and the regulations set forth in 7 CFR
29.74.
Ballots for the April 15-19 referendum were mailed to 622
producers. Approval required votes in favor of the proposal by two-
thirds of the eligible voters who cast valid ballots. The Department
received a total of 156 responses: 127 eligible producers voted in
favor of the consolidation; 27 eligible producers voted against the
consolidation; and 2 ballots were determined to be invalid.
The Department of Agriculture is issuing this rule in conformance
with Executive Order 12866.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12788,
Civil Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have retroactive
effect. The final rule will not preempt any State or local laws,
regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable
conflict with this rule. There are no administrative procedures which
must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of
this rule.
Additionally, in conformance with the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), full consideration has been
given to the potential economic impact upon small business. Most
tobacco producers and many tobacco warehouses are small businesses as
defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This action will not
substantially affect the normal movement of the commodity in the
marketplace. It has been determined that this action will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 29
Administrative Practices and Procedures, Advisory Committees,
Government Publications, Imports, Pesticides and Pests, Reporting and
Recordkeeping Procedures, Tobacco.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR Part 29, Subpart
D, is amended as follows:
Subpart D--Order of Designation of Tobacco Markets
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR Part 29, Subpart D, continues
to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 5, 49 Stat. 732, as amended by Sec. 157(a)(1),
95 Stat. 374 (7 U.S.C. 511d).
2. In Section 29.8001, the table is amended by adding a new entry
(hhh) to read as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Territory Types of tobacco Auction markets Order of designation Citation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(hhh) North Carolina........... flue-cured.............. ................................... Sanford-Carthage-Aberdeen.......... July 5, 1996.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 27998]]
Dated: May 28, 1996.
Kenneth C. Clayton,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-13832 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13831 Screening of Mail Reasonably Suspected of Containing Nonmailable Firearms
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28059-28061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13831]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTAL SERVICE
39 CFR Part 233
Screening of Mail Reasonably Suspected of Containing Nonmailable
Firearms
AGENCY: Postal Service.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 28, 1996, the Postal Service published in the
Federal Register a proposed regulation outlining the treatment of mail
which is reasonably suspected of being dangerous to persons or
property. The rule also contains language which allows for the
screening of mail reasonably suspected of containing nonmailable
firearms. The proposed rule requested comments, but none were received.
Consequently, the Postal Service hereby publishes this final rule.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George C. Davis, (202) 268-3076.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document creates a new subsection
233.11 of title 39, Code of Federal Regulations, to include the
requirements for the treatment of mail which is reasonably suspected of
being dangerous to persons or property. This
[[Page 28060]]
rule is currently contained in the Administrative Support Manual (ASM)
as part 274, but this publication will make it more widely available to
the public.
Sections 233.11 (a) and (a)(4) contain new language which allows
for the screening of mail reasonably suspected of containing
nonmailable firearms. Formerly, part 274 of the Administrative Support
Manual allowed the examination of mail only to identify explosives or
other materials that would pose a danger to life or property. This rule
would expand the existing rule to permit screening for nonmailable
firearms under the same restrictions respecting mail privacy and delay.
The Postal Service has been advised by the Honorable Pedro Rosello,
Governor of Puerto Rico, that illegal firearms entering Puerto Rico by
various means, including the mails, pose a serious threat to the safety
of citizens of Puerto Rico. This information has been confirmed in
meetings with the Attorney General of Puerto Rico, local and federal
law enforcement officials, and officials of the United States
Department of Justice.
Practical and legal constraints limit our ability to ensure that
the mails are free of nonmailable firearms. These constraints were
summarized in the Federal Register at the time the rule permitting
limited screening of mail reasonably suspected of containing dangerous
matter was initially proposed and they remain applicable today. See 55
FR 29637 (July 20, 1990).
Taking these constraints into account, this rule authorizes the
least intrusive, least dilatory response to credible situations where
firearms already declared ``nonmailable'' by statute or regulation are
reasonably suspected of being in the mails. Nonmailable firearms are
defined in Section C024.1.0 of the Domestic Mail Manual. They consist,
primarily, of pistols, revolvers, and other concealable firearms.
Unloaded rifles and shotguns are mailable although the provisions of
the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 921, et seq., and regulations of
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms apply to the shipment of
such weapons by mail or otherwise.
This rule balances the need to protect personal safety with the
need to enforce existing laws and regulations against the mailing of
nonmailable firearms, and protects personal privacy in the use of the
mails. As envisioned by the rule, when the Chief Postal Inspector
determines that a credible threat exists that certain mail may contain
nonmailable firearms, the Chief may authorize the use of technology
that is capable of identifying mail containing such firearms in order
to obtain probable cause for the issuance of a Federal warrant to
search and seize such mail. The rule would not permit any screening
method that would involve opening of sealed mail, or the reading of the
contents of correspondence in sealed mail, without the consent of the
sender or addressee or under authority of a Federal warrant. Moreover,
the only screening which may be authorized must be limited to the least
quantity of mail necessary to respond to the threat and the screening
must be performed without avoidable delay of the mail. Any mail not of
sufficient weight, for example, to contain a nonmailable firearm will
not be screened. In addition, international transit mail will not be
screened unless the postal treaties are appropriately amended. Sworn
reports of all screening methods conducted by, or under supervision of,
the Postal Service would be reported to senior postal managers. In view
of these factors, the Postal Service has determined that this change in
its regulations is a matter of internal practice and procedure that
will not substantially affect the rights or obligations of private
parties.
List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 233
Law enforcement, Postal Service.
Accordingly, title 39 CFR, Part 233, is amended as follows:
PART 233--INSPECTION SERVICE/INSPECTOR GENERAL AUTHORITY
1. The authority citation for part 233 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 402, 403, 404, 406, 410, 411,
3005(e)(1); 12 U.S.C. 3401-3422; 18 U.S.C. 981, 1956, 1957, 2254,
3061; 21 U.S.C. 881; Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (Pub.
L. No. 95-452, as amended), 5 U.S.C. App. 3.
2. Part 233 is amended by adding Sec. 233.11 as follows:
233.11. Mail reasonably suspected of being dangerous to persons or
property.
(a) Screening of mail. When the Chief Postal Inspector determines
that there is a credible threat that certain mail may contain a bomb,
explosives, or other material that would endanger life or property,
including firearms which are not mailable under Section C024 of the
Domestic Mail Manual, the Chief Postal Inspector may, without a search
warrant or the sender's or addressee's consent, authorize the screening
of such mail by any means capable of identifying explosives,
nonmailable firearms, or other dangerous contents in the mails. The
screening must be within the limits of this section and without opening
mail that is sealed against inspection or revealing the contents of
correspondence within mail that is sealed against inspection. The
screening is conducted according to these requirements.
(1) Screening of mail authorized by paragraph (a) of this section
must be limited to the least quantity of mail necessary to respond to
the threat.
(2) Such screening must be done in a manner that does not avoidably
delay the screened mail.
(3) The Chief Postal Inspector may authorize screening of mail by
postal employees and by persons not employed by the Postal Service
under such instruction that require compliance with this part and
protect the security of the mail. No information obtained from such
screening may be disclosed unless authorized by this part.
(4) Mail of insufficient weight to pose a hazard to air or surface
transportation, or to contain firearms which are not mailable under
Section C024 of the Domestic Mail Manual, and international transit
mail must be excluded from such screening.
(5) After screening conducted under paragraph (a) of this section,
mail that is reasonably suspected of posing an immediate and
substantial danger to life or limb, or an immediate and substantial
danger to property, may be treated by postal employees as provided in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(6) After screening, mail sealed against inspection that presents
doubts about whether its contents are hazardous, that cannot be
resolved without opening, must be reported to the Postal Inspection
Service. Such mail must be disposed of under instructions promptly
furnished by the Inspection Service.
(b) Threatening pieces of mail. Mail, sealed or unsealed,
reasonably suspected of posing an immediate danger to life or limb or
an immediate and substantial danger to property may, without a search
warrant, be detained, opened, removed from postal custody, and
processed or treated, but only to the extent necessary to determine and
eliminate the danger and only if a complete written and sworn statement
of the detention, opening, removal, or treatment, and the circumstances
that prompted it, signed by the person purporting to act under this
section, is promptly forwarded to the Chief Postal Inspector.
(c) Reports. Any person purporting to act under this section who
does not report his or her action to the Chief Postal Inspector under
the requirements of this section, or whose action is determined after
investigation not to
[[Page 28061]]
have been authorized, is subject to disciplinary action or criminal
prosecution or both.
Stanley F. Mires,
Chief Counsel, Legislative.
[FR Doc. 96-13831 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13814 Uniform Rules of Practice and Procedure
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28020-28028]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13814]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28021]]
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION
12 CFR Part 747
Uniform Rules of Practice and Procedure
AGENCY: National Credit Union Administration.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) is amending
its regulatory provisions implementing the Uniform Rules of Practice
and Procedure (Uniform Rules). The final rule is intended to clarify
certain provisions and to increase the efficiency and fairness of
administrative hearings.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven W. Widerman, Trial Attorney,
Office of General Counsel, 703/518-6557, National Credit Union
Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 916 of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and
Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), Pub. L. 101-73, 103 Stat. 183 (1989),
required the NCUA, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC),
the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC), and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System (Board) (agencies) to develop uniform rules and procedures for
administrative hearings. The agencies each adopted final Uniform Rules
in August 1991.\1\ Based on their experience in using the rules since
then, the agencies have identified sections of the Uniform Rules that
should be modified. Accordingly, the agencies proposed amendments to
the Uniform Rules on June 23, 1995 (60 FR 32882).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The agencies issued a joint notice of proposed rulemaking on
June 17, 1991 (56 FR 27790). The agencies issued their final rules
on the following dates: NCUA on August 8, 1991 (56 FR 37767); OCC on
August 9, 1991 (56 FR 38024); Board on August 9, 1991 (56 FR 38052);
FDIC on August 9, 1991 (56 FR 37975); and OTS on August 12, 1991 (56
FR 38317).
\2\ On December 30, 1994, NCUA proposed an amendment to the
provision of the Uniforms Rules which restricts ex parte
communications, Sec. 747.9 (59 FR 67655). The other agencies each
issued a similar notice of proposed rulemaking in November and
December 1994. The amendment makes clear that the scope of
Sec. 747.9 conforms to that of the Administrative Procedure Act.
NCUA received two comments on this proposal, both of which are
addressed below. This final rule implements the amendment to
Sec. 747.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NCUA received four comments on the proposal. All commenters
generally supported the proposal, but each suggested improvements or
further revisions.
The final rule implements the proposal with certain changes,
including revisions responsive to some of the concerns expressed by the
commenters. The following section-by-section analysis summarizes the
final rule and highlights the changes from the proposal that the NCUA
made in response to the commenters' suggestions.
The OCC, OTS, FDIC and Board have published separate final rules,
effective June 5, 1996, that are substantively identical to the NCUA's
final rule (61 FR 20330 et seq.), except as noted below in regard to
Secs. 747.1 and 747.9.
II. Section-by-Section Summary and Discussion of Amendments to the
Uniform Rules
Section 747.1 Scope
The proposal added a statutory provision to the list of civil money
penalty provisions to which the Uniform Rules apply. The added
provision was enacted by section 125 of the Riegle Community
Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (CDRI), Pub. L. 103-
325, 108 Stat. 2160, which amended section 102 the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973 (FDPA) (42 U.S.C. 4012a). Section 102 now gives
each ``Federal entity for lending regulation'' authority to assess
civil money penalties against a regulated lending institution if the
institution has a pattern or practice of committing violations under
the FDPA or the notice requirements of the National Flood Insurance Act
of 1968 (NFIA) (42 U.S.C. 4104a). Under the FDPA, the term ``Federal
entity for lending regulation'' includes the agencies and the Farm
Credit Administration.
CDRI section 525 also gave the agencies authority to require a
regulated lending institution to take remedial actions that are
necessary to ensure that the institution complies with the requirements
of the national flood insurance program if: (1) The institution has
engaged in a pattern and practice of noncompliance with regulations
issued pursuant to the FDPA and NFIA; and (2) has not demonstrated
measurable improvement in compliance despite the assessment of civil
money penalties. The final rule adds a new paragraph to the scope
section that reflects this additional authority.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Another provision of the CDRI, section 406, amended the Bank
Secrecy Act (BSA) (31 U.S.C. 5321) to require the Secretary of the
Treasury to delegate authority to the Federal banking agencies, as
defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C.
1813), to impose civil money penalties for BSA violations. The
definition of Federal banking agencies includes the other agencies,
but does not include NCUA. Therefore, while each of the other
agencies has inserted this provision in its final rule, NCUA has
not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NCUA received no comments on this section, which is adopted as
proposed.
Section 747.6 Appearance and Practice in Adjudicatory Proceedings
The proposal permitted the administrative law judge (ALJ) to
require counsel who withdraws from representing a party to accept
service of papers for that party until either: (1) A new counsel has
filed a notice of appearance; or (2) the party indicates that he or she
will proceed on a pro se basis.
The NCUA received one comment on this section. The commenter
suggested that the proposal did not adequately address certain
situations: for example, when counsel withdraws because of a lack of
payment of legal fees that is caused by an agency asset freeze, or
withdraws because the client discharged him or her. The commenter's
implication is that it is unfair to require counsel to continue to
accept service in these situations. Moreover, the commenter expressed
concern that the administrative proceeding may become involved in a
dispute between the client and counsel when the ALJ requires counsel to
continue to accept service after a client discharges counsel. The
commenter suggested that the rule should require that service be given
to both the unreplaced counsel and the party.
The proposal was intended to ensure that a lawyer is always
available to receive service in order to prevent a party from halting
the administrative proceedings simply by evading service. The
regulatory text is clear, however, that the ALJ has the discretion
whether to require former counsel to continue to accept service.
Fairness to counsel is among the factors the ALJ would consider in
exercising this discretion, and the NCUA therefore believes that the
provision as proposed is sufficiently flexible to accommodate the
concerns raised by the commenter.
The final rule changes the proposal's reference from ``service of
process'' to ``service'' to clarify that this section applies to all
papers that the party is entitled to receive. This section is otherwise
adopted as proposed.
Section 747.8 Conflicts of Interest
The proposal sought to improve in two ways the provisions governing
the conflicts of interest that may arise when
[[Page 28022]]
counsel represents multiple persons connected with a proceeding.
First, the proposal sought to protect the interests of individuals
and financial institutions by expanding the circumstances under which
counsel must certify that he or she has obtained a waiver from each
non-party of any potential conflict of interest. The former rule
required counsel to obtain waivers only from non-party institutions
``to which notice of the proceedings must be given.'' The proposal
required counsel to obtain waivers from all parties and non-parties
that counsel represents on a matter relevant to an issue in the
proceeding. It thus ensured that all appropriate party and non-party
individuals and institutions are informed of potential conflicts.
Second, the proposal simplified this provision by eliminating the
requirement for counsel to certify that each client has asserted that
there are no conflicts of interest. The NCUA Board believes that the
former provision was superfluous because the responsibility for
identifying potential conflicts resides with counsel.
The NCUA received one comment on this section. The commenter noted
that the proposal may inhibit multiple representation that otherwise
complies with applicable ethics rules. The commenter suggested that the
proposal could inappropriately tilt the proceeding in favor of the
agencies.
The provision does not limit the right of any party to
representation by counsel of the party's choice. Rather, it ensures
that all interested persons are informed of potential conflicts so that
they may avoid the conflict if they choose. In the NCUA's view, it is
reasonable to establish a baseline standard requiring the affirmative
waiver of conflicts by all affected persons or entities in order to
ensure the integrity of the administrative adjudication process. State
rules of professional responsibility that impose more stringent ethical
standards are unaffected by this requirement.
In addition, the NCUA is unpersuaded by the argument that the
conflicts provision grants the agencies significant advantage in a
proceeding. Persons and entities may be well and vigorously represented
even if they are not all represented by the same counsel.
Therefore, the NCUA adopts this section as proposed.
Section 747.9 Ex parte Communications
The proposal sought to clarify that the restriction on ex parte
communications parallels the requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA). The current Sec. 747.9(b) prohibits ex parte
communications between a party, the party's counsel, or another
interested person, and the NCUA Board or other decisional employee
regarding the merits of an adjudicatory proceeding.
The agencies' intention when adopting the Uniform Rules in 1991 was
that Sec. 747.9 conform to, but not exceed, the scope of the APA
provisions restricting ex parte communications. The APA prohibits ex
parte communications between agency decisionmakers and ``interested
persons outside the agency'' regarding the merits of an adjudicatory
proceeding. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 557(d). It also prohibits enforcement staff
within the agency from participating or advising in the decision,
recommended decision, or agency review of an adjudicatory matter except
as witness or counsel. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 554(d). The APA does not prohibit
agency enforcement staff from seeking approval to amend a notice of, or
to settle or terminate, a proceeding.
The current Sec. 747.9(b) could in practice be misinterpreted to
expand the prohibition on ex parte communications beyond the scope of
the APA to prohibit communications between enforcement staff and the
NCUA Board regarding approval to amend or to terminate existing
enforcement actions. To insure against such an unintended result, the
proposed amendment clarifies that the section is intended to conform to
the provisions of the APA by limiting the prohibition on ex parte
communications to communications to or from ``interested persons
outside the agency,'' 5 U.S.C. 557(d), and by incorporating explicitly
the APA's separation of functions provisions, 5 U.S.C. 554(d). This
approach is consistent with the most recent Model Adjudication Rules
prepared by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS).
ACUS, Model Adjudication Rules (December 1993).
The NCUA received two comments on this section. One commenter
supported the proposal provided that it is limited to intra-agency
communications concerning amending a notice of charges or settling or
terminating a proceeding. The other commenter claimed that ``NCUA has
not stated any compelling need for [the amendment], and we view the
proposed rule as inconsistent with the fundamental principles of
fairness built into our legal system.'' This commenter fails to
recognize that the proposed amendment allows ex parte communications
with the NCUA Board only on nonadjudicatory matters, such as when NCUA
enforcement staff seeks NCUA Board approval to amend a notice of
charges or to settle or terminate an existing enforcement proceeding.
Other parties to the proceeding are not entitled to participate in such
a decision.
Accordingly, the NCUA adopts this section as proposed. -
Section 747.11 Service of Papers
The proposal changed this section by permitting parties, the NCUA
Board, and ALJs to serve a subpoena on a party by delivering it to a
person of suitable age and discretion at a party's place of work.
The NCUA received one comment on this section. The commenter
supported the intent of the proposal, but asserted that the provision
permitting service at a person's place of work was too broad to be
effective, particularly where a financial institution has numerous
branches.
The NCUA interpreted the phrase ``person's place of work'' as used
in the proposal to mean the physical location at which an individual
works and not as any office of the corporation or association that
employs the person. To avoid confusion, the NCUA has added specific
reference to physical location to the regulatory text. In addition, the
final rule states expressly that only an individual, not a corporation
or association, may be served at a residence or place of work.
The same comment points out, however, that the former Uniform Rules
did not expressly permit certain methods of service that are useful for
serving a corporation or other association. The final rule, therefore,
permits service on a party corporation or other association by delivery
of a copy of a notice to an officer, managing or general agent, or to
any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service
of process. Even though a credit union technically may not satisfy the
definition of a corporation or other association, it is to be treated
as such for purposes of service under this rule.
The final rule also provides that, if the agent is one authorized
by a statute to receive service and the statute so requires, the
serving party must also mail a copy to the party. The final rule also
restructures this provision for clarity.
Section 747.12 Construction of Time Limits
The proposal clarified that the additional time allotted for
responding to papers served by mail, delivery service, or electronic
media transmission under Sec. 747.12(c) is not included in determining
whether an act is required to be performed within ten
[[Page 28023]]
days. The proposal also clarified that additional time allotted for
responding to papers served by mail, delivery, or electronic media
transmission is counted by calendar days and, therefore, a party must
count Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays when calculating a time
deadline.
The NCUA received one comment on this section, asserting that
Saturdays, Sundays and holidays should be excluded when calculating a
time deadline because small credit unions and U.S. Post Offices
frequently are not open on those days. This comment addresses time
deadlines generally, whereas the proposed amendment counts Saturdays,
Sundays and holidays only when calculating extra time added under
Sec. 747.12(c) for responding to papers served by mail, delivery, or
electronic media transmission. The proposed amendment does not affect
the current rule excluding those days from deadlines of ten days or
less, and including them in deadlines of more than ten days. NCUA
adopts the section as proposed.
Section 747.20 Amended Pleadings
The proposal changed this section to permit a party to amend its
pleadings without leave of the ALJ and to permit the ALJ to admit
evidence over the objection that the evidence does not fall directly
within the scope of the issues raised by a notice or answer.
The NCUA received one comment on this section. The commenter
asserted that the change could unduly prejudice a party if a notice
were amended to add or delete allegations immediately prior to the
hearing. The commenter expressed concern that the amendment would give
a party insufficient time to seek additional discovery or file for
summary judgment.
The regulatory text gives the ALJ discretion to revise the hearing
schedule to ensure that no prejudice results from last minute
amendments to a notice. The NCUA believes this approach is adequate to
avoid prejudice to a party and, therefore, the NCUA adopts this section
as proposed.
Section 747.24 Scope of Document Discovery
The former Uniform Rules were silent on the use of interrogatories.
The proposal expressly prohibited parties from using interrogatories on
grounds that other discovery tools are more efficient and less
burdensome and therefore more appropriate to administrative
adjudications. NCUA received two comments on this subsection. One urged
that interrogatories not be expressly prohibited so that they would be
available for use on a limited basis. The other urged that
interrogatories be expressly permitted without limitation. Both
comments are effectively moot in failing to recognize that NCUA's
current Local Rule of Practice and Procedure, with a single narrow
exception, already expressly prohibits all forms of discovery other
than production of documents. 12 CFR 747.100.
The proposal also sought to focus document discovery requests so
that they are not unreasonable, oppressive, excessive in scope, or
unduly burdensome to any of the parties. Accordingly, the proposal
preserved the former rule's limitation on document discovery by
permitting discovery only of documents that have material relevance.
However, the proposal specifically provided that a request should be
considered unreasonable, oppressive, excessive in scope, or unduly
burdensome if, among other things: (1) It fails to include justifiable
limitations on the time period covered and the geographic locations to
be searched; (2) the time provided to respond in the request is
inadequate; or (3) the request calls for copies of documents to be
delivered to the requesting party and fails to include the requestor's
written agreement to pay in advance for the copying, in accordance with
Sec. 747.25.
Under the proposal, the scope of permissible document discovery is
not as broad as that allowed under Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure (28 U.S.C. app.). Historically, given the specialized
nature of enforcement proceedings in regulated industries, discovery in
administrative proceedings has not been as expansive as it is in civil
litigation.
The NCUA received one comment on this subsection, urging that the
Federal Rule 26(b) standard in the current subsection be retained. The
agencies' experience with document discovery in their administrative
proceedings has been that substantial time and resources are squandered
on extraneous document discovery. A standard somewhat more restrictive
than that of Federal Rule 26(b) is needed to reasonably confine
document discovery. Accordingly, the NCUA adopts this subsection as
proposed.
Section 747.25 Request for Document Discovery From Parties
The NCUA proposed several changes to Sec. 747.25. First, the
proposal sought to reduce unnecessary burden by permitting a party to:
(1) Respond to document discovery either by producing documents as they
are kept in the ordinary course of business or by organizing them to
correspond to the categories in a document request; and (2) identify
similar documents by category when they are voluminous and are
protected by the deliberative process, attorney-client, or attorney
work-product privilege.
The proposal also amended Sec. 747.25 to permit a party to require
payment in advance for the costs of copying and shipping requested
documents; and clarified that, if a party has stated its intention to
file a timely motion for interlocutory review, the ALJ may not release,
or order a party to produce, documents withheld on grounds of privilege
until the motion for interlocutory review has been decided.
The NCUA received two comments on this section. One comment
suggested that a request for interlocutory review should automatically
stay the proceeding. Under Sec. 747.28(d) of the Uniform Rules, a party
may request that a proceeding be stayed during the pendency of an
interlocutory review, and the ALJ has the discretion to decide whether
a stay is appropriate. The NCUA believes that this procedure adequately
protects the parties. For this reason and to avoid adding unnecessary
delays in the administrative proceedings, the NCUA declines to provide
for an automatic stay whenever a party requests interlocutory review.
The second comment asserted that permitting the NCUA to require
payment in advance for document copying and shipping costs would give
the NCUA an advantage over other creditors if the party is bankrupt
following the administrative hearing. The commenter does not assert
that it is a violation of the bankruptcy laws for the NCUA or any other
creditor to require prepayment for products or services. Moreover, the
NCUA believes that the situations causing the commenter's concern would
be very rare. Accordingly, the NCUA adopts this section as proposed.
Section 747.27 Deposition of Witness Unavailable for Hearing
The proposal clarified that a party may serve a deposition subpoena
on a witness who is unavailable by serving the subpoena on the
witness's authorized representative. The final rule does not include
this proposed change because, in Sec. 747.11(d), the final rule
expressly permits a party to serve a subpoena by delivering the
subpoena to an agent, which includes delivery to an authorized
representative. The proposed change to Sec. 747.27 would be redundant.
The NCUA received no comments on
[[Page 28024]]
this section. The final rule does not, therefore, change this
provision.
Section 747.33 Public Hearings
The proposal changed this section to specify that a party must file
a motion for a private hearing with the NCUA Board, and not the ALJ,
but must serve the ALJ with a copy of the motion.
The NCUA received no comments on this section, which is adopted as
proposed.
Section 747.34 Hearing Subpoenas
The former Uniform Rules did not specifically require that a party
inform all other parties when a subpoena is issued to a non-party. The
proposal required that, after a hearing subpoena is issued by the ALJ,
the party that applied for the subpoena must serve a copy of it on each
party. Under the proposal, any party may move to quash any hearing
subpoena and must serve the motion on each other party.
The NCUA received no comments on this section, which is adopted as
proposed.
Section 747.35 Conduct of Hearings
The proposal limited the number of counsel permitted to examine a
witness and clarified that hearing transcripts may be obtained only
from the court reporter. The former Uniform Rules were silent on these
issues.
The NCUA received no comments on this section, which is adopted as
proposed.
Section 747.37 Post-hearing Filings
The proposal changed the title of this section from ``Proposed
findings and conclusions'' to ``Post-hearing filings'' to describe more
accurately the content of the section.
The proposal also moved, from Sec. 747.35(b) to Sec. 747.37(a), the
provision that requires the ALJ to serve each party with notice of the
filing of the certified transcript of the hearing (including hearing
exhibits). The proposal added a requirement that the ALJ must use the
same method of service for this notice for each recipient.
Finally, the proposal clarified that the ALJ may, when appropriate,
permit parties more than the allotted 30 days to file proposed findings
of fact, proposed conclusions of law, and a proposed order.
The NCUA received no comments on this section, which is adopted
with a minor technical change.
Section 747.38 Recommended Decision and Filing of Record
Under the former Uniform Rules, the ALJ was not required to file an
index of the record when he filed the record with the NCUA Board. The
proposal added this requirement and reorganized this section to improve
its clarity.
The NCUA received no comments on this section, which is adopted as
proposed.
Technical Changes
The final rule makes several technical changes to the proposal that
make the final rule specific to the NCUA. These changes appear
throughout the rule text. For example, bracketed references to the
``agency head'' have been replaced with ``the NCUA Board'' and the
blank part designation before each section number has been filled in
with ``747.''
III. Rationale for Expedited Effective Date
The effective date of NCUA's final rule, June 5, 1996, is less than
the thirty days from publication. The APA requires thirty days' notice
of effectiveness, but permits that requirement to be waived upon a
showing of good cause. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Good cause exists in this
case for making NCUA's final rule effective June 5. The Uniform Rules
were originally developed and recently revised jointly with the other
agencies. The purpose of the June 5 effective date for NCUA's final
rule adopting the revisions is to conform to the effective date of the
other agencies' final rules. No party to an NCUA administrative
proceeding governed by the Uniform Rules will be prejudiced by the June
5 effective date because the revisions adopted in the final rule apply
only to formal administrative proceedings commenced (through filing of
a notice of charges) after the effective date (see 58 FR 37766). Formal
administrative proceedings pending on or before the effective date will
not be affected by the revisions.
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the
NCUA hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly,
a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
This final rule imposes only procedural requirements in
administrative adjudications. It contains no substantive requirements.
It improves the Uniform Rules of Practice and Procedure and facilitates
the orderly determination of administrative proceedings. The changes in
this final rule are primarily clarifications and impose no significant
additional burdens on regulated institutions, parties to administrative
actions, or counsel.
V. Executive Order 12612
This final rule, like the current part 747 it is replacing, will
apply to all Federally insured credit unions. The NCUA Board, pursuant
to Executive Order 12612, has determined, however, that this joint
proposed rule will not have a substantial direct effect on the states,
on the relationship between the national government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels
of government. Further, this joint proposed rule will not preempt
provisions of state law or regulations.
VI. Effective Date
Section 302 of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory
Improvement Act 1994 delays the effective date of regulations
promulgated by the Federal banking agencies that impose additional
reporting, disclosure, or other new requirements to the first date of
the first calendar quarter following publication of the final rule. The
NCUA believes that Section 302 is not applicable to this final rule,
because the regulation does not impose any additional reporting or
other requirements not already contained in the current version of the
Uniform Rules.
Text of the Final Rule
The text of the amendments to 12 CFR part 747 follows:
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION
12 CFR Part 747
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 747
Administrative Practice and Procedure, Bank Deposit Insurance,
Claims, Credit Unions, Crime, Equal Access to Justice, Hearing
Procedures, Investigations, Lawyers, Penalties.
Authority and Issuance
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 747 of chapter VII of
title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth
below:
PART 747--ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS, ADJUDICATIVE HEARINGS, RULES OF
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, AND INVESTIGATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 747 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1766, 1786, 1784 and 1787; and 42 U.S.C.
4012a.
[[Page 28025]]
Subpart A--[Amended]
2. In Sec. 747.1, paragraph (c)(2) is amended by removing ``and''
after the semicolon, paragraph (c)(3) is revised, paragraph (c)(4) is
added, paragraph (d) is redesignated as paragraph (e) and revised, and
new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 747.1 Scope.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) The terms of any final or temporary order issued under section
206 of the Act or any written agreement executed by the National Credit
Union Administration (``NCUA''), any condition imposed in writing by
the NCUA in connection with the grant of an application or request,
certain unsafe or unsound practices or breaches of fiduciary duty, or
any law or regulation not otherwise provided herein, pursuant to 12
U.S.C. 1786(k); and
(4) Any provision of law referenced in section 102(f) of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a(f)) or any order or
regulation issued thereunder;
(d) Remedial action under section 102(g) of the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a(g)); and
(e) This subpart also applies to all other adjudications required
by statute to be determined on the record after opportunity for an
agency hearing, unless otherwise specifically provided for in Subparts
B through J of this Part.
3. In Sec. 747.6, paragraph (a)(3) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 747.6 Appearance and practice in adjudicatory proceedings.
(a) * * *
(3) Notice of appearance. Any individual acting as counsel on
behalf of a party, including the NCUA Board, shall file a notice of
appearance with OFIA at or before the time that the individual submits
papers or otherwise appears on behalf of a party in the adjudicatory
proceeding. The notice of appearance must include a written declaration
that the individual is currently qualified as provided in paragraph
(a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section and is authorized to represent the
particular party. By filing a notice of appearance on behalf of a party
in an adjudicatory proceeding, the counsel agrees and represents that
he or she is authorized to accept service on behalf of the represented
party and that, in the event of withdrawal from representation, he or
she will, if required by the administrative law judge, continue to
accept service until new counsel has filed a notice of appearance or
until the represented party indicates that he or she will proceed on a
pro se basis.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 747.8, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 747.8 Conflicts of interest.
* * * * *
(b) Certification and waiver. If any person appearing as counsel
represents two or more parties to an adjudicatory proceeding or also
represents a non-party on a matter relevant to an issue in the
proceeding, counsel must certify in writing at the time of filing the
notice of appearance required by Sec. 747.6(a):
(1) That the counsel has personally and fully discussed the
possibility of conflicts of interest with each such party and non-
party; and
(2) That each such party and non-party waives any right it might
otherwise have had to assert any known conflicts of interest or to
assert any non-material conflicts of interest during the course of the
proceeding.
5. In Sec. 747.9, paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised and a new
paragraph (e) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 747.9 Ex parte communications.
(a) Definition. (1) Ex parte communication means any material oral
or written communication relevant to the merits of an adjudicatory
proceeding that was neither on the record nor on reasonable prior
notice to all parties that takes place between--
(i) An interested person outside the NCUA (including such person's
counsel); and
(ii) The administrative law judge handling that proceeding, the
NCUA Board, or a decisional employee.
(2) Exception. A request for status of the proceeding does not
constitute an ex parte communication.
(b) Prohibition of ex parte communications. From the time the
notice is issued by the NCUA Board until the date that the NCUA Board
issues its final decision pursuant to Sec. 747.40(c):
(1) No interested person outside the NCUA shall make or knowingly
cause to be made an ex parte communication to any member of the NCUA
Board, the administrative law judge, or a decisional employee; and
(2) No member of the NCUA Board, administrative law judge, or
decisional employee shall make or knowingly cause to be made to any
interested person outside the NCUA any ex parte communication.
* * * * *
(e) Separation of functions. Except to the extent required for the
disposition of ex parte matters as authorized by law, the
administrative law judge may not consult a person or party on any
matter relevant to the merits of the adjudication, unless on notice and
opportunity for all parties to participate. An employee or agent
engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions
for the NCUA in a case may not, in that or a factually related case,
participate or advise in the decision, recommended decision, or agency
review of the recommended decision under section 747.40, except as
witness or counsel in public proceedings.
6. In Sec. 747.11, paragraphs (c)(2) and (d) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 747.11 Service of papers.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) If a party has not appeared in the proceeding in accordance
with Sec. 747.6, the NCUA Board or the administrative law judge shall
make service by any of the following methods:
(i) By personal service;
(ii) If the person to be served is an individual, by delivery to a
person of suitable age and discretion at the physical location where
the individual resides or works;
(iii) If the person to be served is a corporation or other
association, by delivery to an officer, managing or general agent, or
to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive
service and, if the agent is one authorized by statute to receive
service and the statute so requires, by also mailing a copy to the
party;
(iv) By registered or certified mail addressed to the person's last
known address; or
(v) By any other method reasonably calculated to give actual
notice.
(d) Subpoenas. Service of a subpoena may be made:
(1) By personal service;
(2) If the person to be served is an individual, by delivery to a
person of suitable age and discretion at the physical location where
the individual resides or works;
(3) By delivery to an agent, which, in the case of a corporation or
other association, is delivery to an officer, managing or general
agent, or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to
receive service and, if the agent is one authorized by statute to
receive service and the statute so requires, by also mailing a copy to
the party;
(4) By registered or certified mail addressed to the person's last
known address; or
[[Page 28026]]
(5) By any other method reasonably calculated to give actual
notice.
* * * * *
7. In Sec. 747.12, paragraphs (a), (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 747.12 Construction of time limits.
(a) General rule. In computing any period of time prescribed by
this subpart, the date of the act or event that commences the
designated period of time is not included. The last day so computed is
included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday. When the
last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the period runs
until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or
Federal holiday. Intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays
are included in the computation of time. However, when the time period
within which an act is to be performed is ten days or less, not
including any additional time allowed for in Sec. 747.12(c),
intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays are not included.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) If service is made by first class, registered, or certified
mail, add three calendar days to the prescribed period;
(2) If service is made by express mail or overnight delivery
service, add one calendar day to the prescribed period; or
(3) If service is made by electronic media transmission, add one
calendar day to the prescribed period, unless otherwise determined by
the NCUA Board or the administrative law judge in the case of filing,
or by agreement among the parties in the case of service.
8. Section 747.20 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 747.20 Amended pleadings.
(a) Amendments. The notice or answer may be amended or supplemented
at any stage of the proceeding. The respondent must answer an amended
notice within the time remaining for the respondent's answer to the
original notice, or within ten days after service of the amended
notice, whichever period is longer, unless the NCUA Board or
administrative law judge orders otherwise for good cause.
(b) Amendments to conform to the evidence. When issues not raised
in the notice or answer are tried at the hearing by express or implied
consent of the parties, they will be treated in all respects as if they
had been raised in the notice or answer, and no formal amendments are
required. If evidence is objected to at the hearing on the ground that
it is not within the issues raised by the notice or answer, the
administrative law judge may admit the evidence when admission is
likely to assist in adjudicating the merits of the action and the
objecting party fails to satisfy the administrative law judge that the
admission of such evidence would unfairly prejudice that party's action
or defense upon the merits. The administrative law judge may grant a
continuance to enable the objecting party to meet such evidence.
9. In Sec. 747.24, paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 747.24 Scope of document discovery.
(a) Limits on discovery. (1) Subject to the limitations set out in
paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, a party to a proceeding
under this subpart may obtain document discovery by serving a written
request to produce documents. For purposes of a request to produce
documents, the term ``documents'' may be defined to include drawings,
graphs, charts, photographs, recordings, data stored in electronic
form, and other data compilations from which information can be
obtained, or translated, if necessary, by the parties through detection
devices into reasonably usable form, as well as written material of all
kinds.
(2) Discovery by use of deposition is governed by subpart I of this
part.
(3) Discovery by use of interrogatories is not permitted.
(b) Relevance. A party may obtain document discovery regarding any
matter, not privileged, that has material relevance to the merits of
the pending action. Any request to produce documents that calls for
irrelevant material, that is unreasonable, oppressive, excessive in
scope, unduly burdensome, or repetitive of previous requests, or that
seeks to obtain privileged documents will be denied or modified. A
request is unreasonable, oppressive, excessive in scope, or unduly
burdensome if, among other things, it fails to include justifiable
limitations on the time period covered and the geographic locations to
be searched, the time provided to respond in the request is inadequate,
or the request calls for copies of documents to be delivered to the
requesting party and fails to include the requester's written agreement
to pay in advance for the copying, in accordance with Sec. 747.25.
* * * * *
10. In Sec. 747.25, paragraphs (a), (b), (e), and (g) are revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 747.25 Request for document discovery from parties.
(a) General rule. Any party may serve on any other party a request
to produce for inspection any discoverable documents that are in the
possession, custody, or control of the party upon whom the request is
served. The request must identify the documents to be produced either
by individual item or by category, and must describe each item and
category with reasonable particularity. Documents must be produced as
they are kept in the usual course of business or must be organized to
correspond with the categories in the request.
(b) Production or copying. The request must specify a reasonable
time, place, and manner for production and performing any related acts.
In lieu of inspecting the documents, the requesting party may specify
that all or some of the responsive documents be copied and the copies
delivered to the requesting party. If copying of fewer than 250 pages
is requested, the party to whom the request is addressed shall bear the
cost of copying and shipping charges. If a party requests 250 pages or
more of copying, the requesting party shall pay for the copying and
shipping charges. Copying charges are the current per-page copying rate
imposed by 12 CFR part 4 implementing the Freedom of Information Act (5
U.S.C. 552). The party to whom the request is addressed may require
payment in advance before producing the documents.
* * * * *
(e) Privilege. At the time other documents are produced, the
producing party must reasonably identify all documents withheld on the
grounds of privilege and must produce a statement of the basis for the
assertion of privilege. When similar documents that are protected by
deliberative process, attorney work-product, or attorney-client
privilege are voluminous, these documents may be identified by category
instead of by individual document. The administrative law judge retains
discretion to determine when the identification by category is
insufficient.
* * * * *
(g) Ruling on motions. After the time for filing responses pursuant
to this section has expired, the administrative law judge shall rule
promptly on all motions filed pursuant to this section. If the
administrative law judge determines that a discovery request, or any of
its terms, calls for irrelevant material, is unreasonable, oppressive,
excessive in scope, unduly burdensome, or repetitive of previous
requests, or seeks to obtain privileged documents, he or she may
[[Page 28027]]
deny or modify the request, and may issue appropriate protective
orders, upon such conditions as justice may require. The pendency of a
motion to strike or limit discovery or to compel production is not a
basis for staying or continuing the proceeding, unless otherwise
ordered by the administrative law judge. Notwithstanding any other
provision in this part, the administrative law judge may not release,
or order a party to produce, documents withheld on grounds of privilege
if the party has stated to the administrative law judge its intention
to file a timely motion for interlocutory review of the administrative
law judge's order to produce the documents, and until the motion for
interlocutory review has been decided.
* * * * *
11. In Sec. 747.33, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 747.33 Public hearings.
(a) General rule. All hearings shall be open to the public, unless
the NCUA Board, in its discretion, determines that holding an open
hearing would be contrary to the public interest. Within 20 days of
service of the notice, any respondent may file with the NCUA Board a
request for a private hearing, and any party may file a reply to such a
request. A party must serve on the administrative law judge a copy of
any request or reply the party files with the NCUA Board. The form of,
and procedure for, these requests and replies are governed by
Sec. 747.23. A party's failure to file a request or a reply constitutes
a waiver of any objections regarding whether the hearing will be public
or private.
* * * * *
12. In Sec. 747.34, paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) are revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 747.34 Hearing subpoenas.
(a) Issuance. (1) Upon application of a party showing general
relevance and reasonableness of scope of the testimony or other
evidence sought, the administrative law judge may issue a subpoena or a
subpoena duces tecum requiring the attendance of a witness at the
hearing or the production of documentary or physical evidence at the
hearing. The application for a hearing subpoena must also contain a
proposed subpoena specifying the attendance of a witness or the
production of evidence from any state, territory, or possession of the
United States, the District of Columbia, or as otherwise provided by
law at any designated place where the hearing is being conducted. The
party making the application shall serve a copy of the application and
the proposed subpoena on every other party.
(2) A party may apply for a hearing subpoena at any time before the
commencement of a hearing. During a hearing, a party may make an
application for a subpoena orally on the record before the
administrative law judge.
(3) The administrative law judge shall promptly issue any hearing
subpoena requested pursuant to this section. If the administrative law
judge determines that the application does not set forth a valid basis
for the issuance of the subpoena, or that any of its terms are
unreasonable, oppressive, excessive in scope, or unduly burdensome, he
or she may refuse to issue the subpoena or may issue it in a modified
form upon any conditions consistent with this subpart. Upon issuance by
the administrative law judge, the party making the application shall
serve the subpoena on the person named in the subpoena and on each
party.
(b) Motion to quash or modify. (1) Any person to whom a hearing
subpoena is directed or any party may file a motion to quash or modify
the subpoena, accompanied by a statement of the basis for quashing or
modifying the subpoena. The movant must serve the motion on each party
and on the person named in the subpoena. Any party may respond to the
motion within ten days of service of the motion.
* * * * *
13. In Sec. 747.35, paragraph (a)(3) is redesignated as paragraph
(a)(4), a new paragraph (a)(3) is added, and paragraph (b) is revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 747.35 Conduct of hearings.
(a) * * *
(3) Examination of witnesses. Only one counsel for each party may
conduct an examination of a witness, except that in the case of
extensive direct examination, the administrative law judge may permit
more than one counsel for the party presenting the witness to conduct
the examination. A party may have one counsel conduct the direct
examination and another counsel conduct re-direct examination of a
witness, or may have one counsel conduct the cross examination of a
witness and another counsel conduct the re-cross examination of a
witness.
* * * * *
(b) Transcript. The hearing must be recorded and transcribed. The
reporter will make the transcript available to any party upon payment
by that party to the reporter of the cost of the transcript. The
administrative law judge may order the record corrected, either upon
motion to correct, upon stipulation of the parties, or following notice
to the parties upon the administrative law judge's own motion.
14. In Sec. 747.37, the section heading and paragraph (a)(1) are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 747.37 Post-hearing filings.
(a) Proposed findings and conclusions and supporting briefs. (1)
Using the same method of service for each party, the administrative law
judge shall serve notice upon each party that the certified transcript,
together with all hearing exhibits and exhibits introduced but not
admitted into evidence at the hearing, has been filed. Any party may
file with the administrative law judge proposed findings of fact,
proposed conclusions of law, and a proposed order within 30 days
following service of this notice by the administrative law judge or
within such longer period as may be ordered by the administrative law
judge.
* * * * *
15. Section 747.38 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 747.38 Recommended decision and filing of record.
(a) Filing of recommended decision and record. Within 45 days after
expiration of the time allowed for filing reply briefs under
Sec. 747.37(b), the administrative law judge shall file with and
certify to the NCUA Board, for decision, the record of the proceeding.
The record must include the administrative law judge's recommended
decision, recommended findings of fact, recommended conclusions of law,
and proposed order; all prehearing and hearing transcripts, exhibits,
and rulings; and the motions, briefs, memoranda, and other supporting
papers filed in connection with the hearing. The administrative law
judge shall serve upon each party the recommended decision, findings,
conclusions, and proposed order.
(b) Filing of index. At the same time the administrative law judge
files with and certifies to the NCUA Board for final determination the
record of the proceeding, the administrative law judge shall furnish to
the NCUA Board a certified index of the entire record of the
proceeding. The certified index shall include, at a minimum, an entry
for each paper, document or motion filed with the administrative law
judge in the proceeding, the date of the filing, and the identity of
the filer. The certified index shall also include an exhibit index
containing, at a minimum, an entry consisting of exhibit number and
title or description for: Each exhibit introduced and admitted into
evidence
[[Page 28028]]
at the hearing; each exhibit introduced but not admitted into evidence
at the hearing; each exhibit introduced and admitted into evidence
after the completion of the hearing; and each exhibit introduced but
not admitted into evidence after the completion of the hearing.
Dated: May 28, 1996.
Becky Baker,
Secretary of the Board, National Credit Union Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-13814 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13772 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28423-28427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13772]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 74-09; Notice 45]
RIN 2127-AF46
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule, and a companion rule issued by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), address the use of child harnesses and backless
child restraints in aircraft. This document amends a provision in
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, ``Child Restraint
Systems,'' that permits those restraints to be certified for use in
both motor vehicles and aircraft.
Under the current FAA regulations, aircraft-certified child
restraints may be used on aircraft. However, because testing has raised
FAA's concerns about the safety of using harnesses and backless child
restraint systems on the types of seats found in aircraft, FAA is
publishing a rule in today's Federal Register that prohibits the use of
booster seats, and vest- and harness-type child restraint systems on
aircraft during take off, landing and movement on the surface, even if
these restraints are certified for aircraft use.
In view of the FAA's determination that harnesses and booster seats
are unsuitable for use during significant portions of a flight, the
agency believes continuing to permit the certification of those
restraints for aircraft use would be inconsistent and likely confusing
to the public. Accordingly, this rule no longer permits those
restraints to be certified for aircraft use, and instead requires
manufacturers to label these restraints as not certified for use in
aircraft.
DATES: This rule is effective on September 3, 1996.
Petitions for reconsideration of the rule must be received by July
19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket and
number of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, Room 5220,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
Washington, D.C., 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For nonlegal issues: Dr. George
Mouchahoir, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards (telephone 202-366-4919,
fax 202-366-4329). For legal issues: Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of the
Chief Counsel (telephone 202-366-2992, fax 202-366-3820). Both can be
reached at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C., 20590. For information on FAA's
rule, contact Ms. Donell Pollard (AFS-203), Air Transportation
Division, Flight Standards Service (telephone 202-267-3735), Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C.,
20591.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document amends the provision in
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, ``Child Restraint
Systems,'' that permits child restraint systems to be certified for use
in both motor vehicles and aircraft. This rule complements an FAA rule,
published elsewhere in today's Federal Register, that withdraws
approval for the use of booster seats and vest- and harness-type child
restraint systems on aircraft, and prohibits airlines from permitting a
child to be restrained in such a restraint during take off, landing,
and movement on the surface, even if the restraint is certified for
aircraft use. The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on which this
NHTSA rule is based was published at 60 FR 30696 (June 9, 1995).
Harnesses and booster seats are types of child restraint systems
regulated by Standard 213. A harness typically consists of a vest or a
series of straps that form a vest-like garment, that attaches at the
back of the harness to a vehicle seat's lap belt. Harnesses are
generally intended for children who weigh from 25 to 50 pounds. Some
require the use of a tether strap to supplement the lap belt. The
restraint that the FAA refers to as a ``booster seat'' is a ``backless
child restraint system'' under Standard 213. (See definitions of
``booster seat'' and ``backless child restraint system'' in S4 of FMVSS
213.) A ``backless child restraint system'' is one of two types of
booster seat.1 A backless child restraint has a structural element
(typically a shield) designed to restrain forward motion of the child's
torso in a frontal crash. Backless child restraint systems are
generally intended for children weighing from 30 to 60 pounds. Backless
child restraint systems are also known as ``backless booster seats'' or
``shield-type'' booster seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The other type of booster seat is the ``belt positioning
seat,'' which is intended for use by children weighing from 30 to 60
pounds, and designed for use with a lap/shoulder belt system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
Standard 213 permits manufacturers to certify their restraints
2 for aircraft use if they are certified for use in motor vehicles
and meet an additional requirement, an inversion test. The provisions
permitting such certification were added to the standard in 1984 (49 FR
34357; August 30, 1984), partly in response to suggestions of the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that DOT simplify its
standards for the performance of child restraints on aircraft by
combining all technical requirements into a single standard (NTSB
Safety Recommendations A-83-1, February 24, 1983). Prior to the
amendment, FAA had its own child restraint standard, Technical Standard
Order C100 (TSO C100). TSO C100 and FMVSS 213 had different performance
requirements, methods of certification and testing procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The ``belt positioning'' booster seat is not eligible for
such certification. FMVSS No. 213 does not permit these restraints
to be certified for aircraft use because aircraft passenger seats
typically lack shoulder belts. See amendment of FMVSS 213 to permit
manufacture of belt-positioning child seats (59 FR 37167; July 21,
1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1984 rulemaking, NHTSA and FAA concluded that the DOT child
restraint requirements should be consolidated in FMVSS 213 and that a
TSO C100 inversion test was the only performance requirement from the
FAA standard that needed to be incorporated into FMVSS 213. In the
inversion test, the combination of a child restraint, test dummy and
aircraft passenger seat is rotated forward at a specified speed to an
inverted position and held there, and later rotated sideways at the
same speed and held. During the test, the child restraint must not fall
out of the aircraft safety belt and the test dummy must not fall out of
the child restraint.
Prior to the 1984 rulemaking, a manufacturer wishing to designate a
child restraint model as suitable for use in aircraft had to submit
information to FAA to obtain its approval of the model. As a result of
this pre-1984 approval process, there was a disparity between the
number of child restraints available
[[Page 28424]]
for use in motor vehicles and the number available for use in aircraft.
In 1984, approximately 28 models of child restraints were produced
under FMVSS 213 for use in motor vehicles. The child restraint
manufacturers obtained TSO authorizations for only five of the 28
models, or only 16 percent of the total production of child restraints.
The lack of FAA approval of most motor vehicle child restraints for
use in aircraft aroused several safety concerns. One was that some
families traveling by air were discouraged from taking unapproved child
restraints with them and thus did not have them available for use at
their destination to protect their children while the family was
driving. The other concern was that those families who nevertheless
took their unapproved child restraints on trips had to stow the
restraints in the aircraft cargo compartment, and thus were not able to
use them to protect their children during the flight.
The effect of the 1984 rulemaking was to speed certification of
child restraints for use in aircraft, and thereby increase the
availability of aircraft-certified child restraints. Since then,
manufacturers have been able, under FMVSS 213, to certify their child
restraints for aircraft use by ensuring that they pass all of the
standard's motor vehicle requirements and the inversion test. As a
result, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of child
restraints certified for use in aircraft.
FAA complemented NHTSA's rulemaking by amending its Federal
Aviation Regulations (FARs)(14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 125 and 135) to
provide for the in-flight use of aircraft-certified child restraints.
The amendments required the air carriers to allow the use of any child
restraint having a label indicating that it is certified to FMVSS 213,
manufactured under the standards of the United Nations, or approved by
a foreign government, as long as the restraint can be secured to a
forward-facing passenger seat. An infant or child who is accompanied by
a parent, guardian, or properly designated attendant and who is
properly placed in a device that meets the labeling requirements of the
FARs and that, in turn, is properly secured in an approved aircraft
seat using the safety belt, has been considered by FAA to comply with
its regulations requiring each person to occupy an approved seat during
takeoff and landing.
There are currently many different types of child restraint systems
that are certified as complying with FMVSS 213's motor vehicle and
aircraft requirements, and thus permitted by FAA for use on aircraft.
In addition to harnesses and shield boosters, these systems included
``infant seats,'' which position an infant so that the baby faces
toward the rear of the motor vehicle or aircraft; and ``convertible''
child seats, which convert so that they can be used rear-facing with
infants and forward-facing with toddlers. In addition, there are
restraint systems that are certified for use in airplanes by foreign
countries.
FAA Withdrawal of Approval
Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, FAA is withdrawing approval
for the use of booster seats and vest- and harness-type child restraint
systems on aircraft, and prohibiting airlines from permitting a child
to be restrained in such a restraint during take off, landing, and
movement on the surface. The FAA is also emphasizing the existing
prohibition in all aircraft against the use of lap held child
restraints, such as belly belts.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ 3\ Belly belts restrain a small child on the lap of an adult
and consist of a short loop of webbing with buckle hardware on the
ends. The belt is buckled around the child's abdomen and is secured
to the adult's safety belt by routing the adult's safety belt
through a small loop of webbing sewn on the belly belt. Belly belts
are certified for airplane use by the Civil Aviation Authority of
the United Kingdom. However, belly belts cannot meet the performance
requirements of FMVSS 213 and therefore have not been certified for
use in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA's action responds to research by its Civil Aeromedical
Institute (CAMI). The CAMI research is discussed in a report entitled,
``The Performance of Child Restraint Devices in Transport Airplane
Passenger Seats,'' a copy of which has been placed in NHTSA rulemaking
docket 74-09, notice 41. (Persons wishing to obtain a copy of the
report should contact FAA at the address given in the ``For Further
Information'' section at the beginning of this final rule document.)
CAMI dynamically tested six types of restraining devices: child
harnesses, booster seats, rear-facing infant seats, convertible child
restraint systems, airplane seat lap belts, and belly belts. The first
four devices were evaluated for their ability to fit and adjust to an
airplane passenger seat and lap belt. The lap belt was evaluated for
its ability to secure test dummies representative of children two and
three years old. Fit and adjustment was not considered an issue for the
installation of the belly belt. All of the devices were evaluated for
their performance in aircraft seats with and without ``breakover'' seat
backs (a breakover feature allows the seat back to rotate forward
easily when impacted by an occupant from behind). They were also
evaluated, using anthropomorphic test dummies representing children,
for their ability to limit occupant head excursion, head and chest
accelerations and abdominal forces. In addition, the test program
evaluated the effect that the impact load of an ``aft row occupant''
had on the performance of a child restraint located in an aircraft seat
immediately in front of the aft row occupant. The aft row occupant
impact load was generated in tests called ``double row tests,'' using
an adult test dummy placed in the aft row seat.
Booster Seat Tests
CAMI tested four models of shield-type booster seats in six dynamic
tests, three of which involved single row tests, and the other three,
double row tests. With regard to fit and adjustment of the booster
seats to the airplane seat chosen for testing purposes, CAMI found that
three had fit and adjustment problems. One booster seat had problems
fitting an airplane seat because of the limited width between arm rests
on the passenger seat. This may have occurred because of the difference
in width between the representative aircraft seat (about 20 inches
wide) used in FMVSS 213 and the aircraft seat (17.25 inches wide) used
in the CAMI testing. Two booster seats had incompatibility problems
between the buckle/webbing path molded in the front shield and the
airplane web path and buckle position of the lap belt on the airplane
passenger seat used by CAMI. In fact, the webbing could not be
installed over the front shield in accordance with the positioning
instruction of the booster seats' manufacturers. CAMI also found that
one of the four booster seats failed structurally, and two of the
others allowed forward head excursion in excess of the 32-inch distance
permitted by FMVSS 213.
CAMI also found a problem with the loads that the child dummies
restrained in the tested booster seats experienced when the boosters
were on a seat with a breakover seat back and exposed to loads from the
aft row occupant. Its tests showed that loads from an aft row adult
occupant resulted in an increase in abdominal loading of the dummy in a
booster seat, as compared to the abdominal loading of a dummy in an
aircraft lap belt with an adult aft-row occupant. The CAMI study states
that, when placed in a seat with a breakover seat back, the booster
seat encounters problems because:
With no back shell, the typical booster seat does not provide
protection from the forces transmitted by the airplane seat back
during horizontal impact conditions. Traditionally, restraint
systems in airplanes have been designed to avoid loads transmitted
to the soft tissues of the abdomen. A child
[[Page 28425]]
restrained in a booster seat may be forced against the rigid shield
due to the seat back breakover action. For the intended size of
children in booster seats, the load path of these breakover forces
may include the abdominal region.
It is to be noted that CAMI also found that the abdominal loads on
a child dummy placed in a shield-type booster seat secured to an
airplane seat with a locked seat back were higher than on a child dummy
secured in a typical airplane seat lap belt with a locked seat back.
The FAA recognized, however, that there are no accepted criteria to
assess the relationship between differences in measured levels of
abdominal loadings and any resulting risk of abdominal injury, and the
type and severity of such injury.
Harness Tests
CAMI tested one type of harness restraint. The restraint consisted
of a torso vest with straps over the shoulders and around the waist,
and a crotch strap. The shoulder and abdomen straps were attached to a
rectangular metal plate on the back of the restraint. The airplane lap
belts were routed through a loop of webbing attached to the metal back
plate on the restraint.
The restraint was tested with a three-year-old test dummy in two
single row tests. CAMI found incompatibility problems between the
harness and the airplane seat lap belts:
With the lap belts adjusted to the minimum length, the [harness]
could be moved forward approximately 7 inches before tension was
developed in the belts. This was considered unsatisfactory for
testing.
CAMI also found grossly excessive excursion of the child
anthropomorphic test dummy (ATD) restrained in the harness:
The ATD moved forward and over the front edge of the seat
cushion and proceeded to submarine toward the floor. Elasticity in
the webbing of the harness and the lap belts then heaved the ATD
rearward. The force pulling the ATD back into the seat appeared to
be applied by the Gz [crotch] strap directly through the pubic
symphysis of the pelvic bone.
Based on this finding, CAMI concluded that a harness performs
poorly in protecting the child occupant.
Proposal and Comments
Based on these test results, the FAA proposed to withdraw approval
for the use of harnesses and booster seats on aircraft. 60 FR 30690,
June 9, 1995. At the same time, NHTSA issued an NPRM to amend FMVSS 213
to require manufacturers to label harnesses and backless booster seats
as not for aircraft use. The standard already requires that belt-
positioning booster seats be so labeled. The agency issued the proposal
on the basis that, in view of the FAA's determination that harnesses
and booster seats are unsuitable for use during significant portions of
a flight, continuing to permit the certification of those restraints
for aircraft use would be inconsistent and likely confusing to the
public.
NHTSA received one comment on its rulemaking proposal. The
commenter was the Air Transport Association of America (ATA),
representing its U.S. passenger carrying airline members. The ATA
comment responded to both the NHTSA and FAA proposals. FAA received
nine other comments on its proposal.
With regard to ATA's comment on the agencies' proposals, except as
noted below, ATA focused mainly on issues relating to the proposed FAA
provisions for implementing the contemplated ban. The commenter
particularly directed its comments toward what ATA believed were
potential difficulties the airlines (``carriers'') may experience in
enforcing it. ATA believed carriers should not be placed in the role of
``policing compliance'' with the proposed requirements, suggesting
instead ``a more informational role.'' ATA was concerned that some
passengers might insist on using a banned restraint, and might be
confused by the fact that their restraint might be certified for
aircraft use. (NHTSA's rule will affect restraints that are
manufactured on or after the effective date of the rule. Restraints
that were manufactured before the effective date and that were
certified for aircraft use bear a label that the restraint is so
certified.) ATA stated that,
It has been the practice of several airlines that when
confronted with an appropriately labeled device that is not actually
approved for use (e.g., belly belts) to advise the passenger of that
fact and to attempt to discourage the use of the device. For the
most part, these efforts are successful. In the unusual case,
however, where a passenger insists upon the use of the device (often
citing the ``appropriate label'' as allowing this use) the practice
is to avoid confrontation and permit the use if that is the only
remaining alternative. In light of the new increasing numbers of
devices with regard to which this type of experience is to be
expected, the rule obviously must take into account the
practicalities of this real world experience and provide for this
type of situation without threat of penalty to the carrier.
(Emphasis in text.)
For FAA's response to this and other comments from the ATA on
requirements proposed by FAA, readers should refer to the FAA final
rule (published concurrently with this rule, in today's Federal
Register). That document also discusses FAA's responses to the other
nine comments on its NPRM, including those from industry groups,
aviation authorities, air carriers and child restraint manufacturers.
ATA's comment was pertinent to NHTSA in two respects. First, it
provides support for NHTSA's rulemaking, in that it indicates that
confusion is not only likely, but has in fact resulted from a
discrepancy between a manufacturer's assertion about the suitability of
a restraint for aircraft and the FAA's determination that it is not. By
preventing manufacturers from labeling booster seats and harnesses as
appropriate for aircraft use, NHTSA's rule will reduce the potential
for confusion to the extent possible.
In addition, ATA also stated that it believed that ``before final
action is taken on this rulemaking,'' FAA and NHTSA must explain how
this rulemaking relates to a ``larger issue.'' While ATA was unclear
defining the ``larger issue,'' it appears that ATA is concerned about
possible fit and adjustment problems between the airplane seat and
restraint systems that can continue to be certified for and used in
aircraft, in the aftermath of today's rule. For example, the CAMI
report found that some forward facing convertible restraints could not
be secured satisfactorily in the airplane passenger seat used for
testing purposes.
FAA and NHTSA believe this issue was addressed in the NPRMs. As
discussed there, in view of the problems revealed by the CAMI testing,
NHTSA and FAA will consider a separate rulemaking to assess the need to
improve FMVSS 213's requirements for aircraft-certified child
restraints other than harnesses and booster seats. The agencies are
developing possible requirements and procedures that could improve the
assessment of the performance of child restraint systems in the
aircraft environment. Among other issues, the agencies will consider
whether the seat assembly used under FMVSS 213 in testing child
restraints for aircraft use sufficiently represents an aircraft
passenger seat.4 The agencies are proceeding with this assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Child restraints certified as complying with FMVSS 213's
aircraft requirements are currently tested on a ``representative
aircraft passenger seat'' (S7.3 of FMVSS 213). FMVSS 213 also
specifies that FAA approved aircraft safety belts are used to test
child restraints that are certified to the aircraft requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28426]]
Other Issues
In undertaking the current rulemaking, NHTSA recognized that a rule
restricting the use of child restraints in aircraft could affect the
use of the restraints in motor vehicles. In the 1984 rulemaking that
allowed child restraints to be certified for use in motor vehicles and
aircraft, NHTSA recognized that parents might not use child restraints
to transport their children in a vehicle to and from the airport if the
child restraint could not be used on the aircraft. The data indicated
that child safety was not a critical issue for aircraft in terms of the
number of child deaths or injuries, but that it was a large problem for
motor vehicles. Many State laws that require the use of child seats in
motor vehicles do not cover all the ages of children that might use
booster seats. NHTSA was concerned that, if booster seats may not be
used on aircraft, and if parents are not willing to stow them with
their luggage, there is a possibility that the restraints could be left
home altogether and thus not used to restrain a child in the vehicle.
It was suggested that the number of child injuries in motor vehicle
accidents might increase because of this non-use.
In issuing the NPRM, NHTSA reached a tentative conclusion that
restricting the use of booster seats and harnesses on aircraft would
not adversely affect motor vehicle safety by increasing the numbers of
unrestrained children in vehicles. While NHTSA requested comments on
how it should assess this issue, no comment was received. The agency
has decided to proceed with this rulemaking in view of the lack of
information indicating that the rulemaking will reduce the use of child
restraints during the ground portion of a trip. However, the agencies
will monitor the situation for a possible degradation of motor vehicle
safety.
After considering ATA's comment on the rulemaking and other
pertinent information, NHTSA has decided to adopt the requirements
proposed in the NPRM, without change. This amendment to Standard 213
will remove the possibility that a restraint could be certified for
aircraft use despite the fact the FAA has prohibited such use of that
restraint. This amendment reduces the likelihood of confusion and
misunderstanding on the part of consumers, and makes the FAA and NHTSA
requirements consistent.
However, for clarification purposes, NHTSA emphasizes the following
points about the use and performance of child restraints. First, there
are significant differences between the seating environment of motor
vehicles and that of aircraft. Because of those differences, the
problems encountered with child restraint use in aircraft are not
encountered with child restraint use in motor vehicles. Therefore,
notwithstanding this rule, the use of harnesses and booster seats in
motor vehicles continues to be important for child safety.
The problems reported by CAMI, i.e., the combined effects of
aircraft seatback breakover designs and aft occupant impacts, are not
encountered in motor vehicles. The seat back in a motor vehicle is
designed to remain fixed in a crash and not ``breakover'' in the manner
of an airplane seat. Also, a vehicle seat containing a child restraint
is less likely to be impacted from the rear by an adult than is an
aircraft seat containing a child restraint. There are several reasons
for this. First, child restraints are recommended for use in the rear
instead of front vehicle seating positions. Thus, if a child restraint
is installed as recommended, there will not, in most cases, be any
passenger rearward of the child restraint who could impact and load the
seat containing the child restraint in the event of a frontal crash.
Exceptions would be in vehicles, such as vans and some station wagons,
which have three rows of seats. Second, if there were a passenger
seated behind the seat containing a child restraint, and that person
were sitting in an outboard seating position, the person most likely
would have a lap/shoulder belt system available for use. Most aircraft
lack shoulder belts. If the vehicle passenger were restrained by that
belt system, the person would not load the seat with the child
restraint in the manner observed in the CAMI study. Third, given the
number of persons typically carried in a motor vehicle, it is unlikely
there would be an adult seated behind a child in a child restraint,
regardless of the number or pattern of seats in the vehicle.
Further, harnesses and other child restraints are tested under
FMVSS 213 on a seat assembly that is representative of a motor vehicle
seat, and that is equipped with a safety belt representative of the lap
belt in the center rear seating position. In its compliance testing,
the agency has not found a problem between the vehicle lap belt and a
child harness such as that found by CAMI between an airplane lap belt
and a harness. In addition, NHTSA has not found in its compliance
testing the type of fit and adjustment problems between booster seats
and the vehicle seats that CAMI found between booster seats and the
aircraft seats.
Booster seats could fit better on motor vehicles than aircraft in
part because of the design of the belt restraints with which the
boosters are attached to the automobile. The position of the buckle for
an aircraft seat belt assembly is very different from that of a buckle
for a vehicle seat belt assembly. An aircraft seat belt assembly is
designed so that when it is buckled, the buckle is located midway
between the anchorages, in front of the user's abdomen. A motor vehicle
lap/shoulder belt or lap-only belt is designed so that the buckle is
located to the side of the user's torso, near the hip, when the belt is
buckled.
Another reason for believing that the problems reported by CAMI are
not indicative of the performance of child restraints in motor vehicles
is the difference between the crash pulse used by CAMI and the crash
pulse used in FMVSS 213 testing. In its testing of head excursion, head
and chest acceleration and abdominal forces, CAMI used a crash pulse
appropriate for aircraft. FMVSS 213 testing, by contrast, involves the
use of a motor vehicle crash pulse.
Compliance Date
The compliance date for this rule is in 90 days. There is good
cause for this short compliance date. It is the same as that of FAA's
rule that withdraws approval of boosters and harnesses for use on
aircraft. The effective date for the agencies' rules should be
identical since the two rulemaking actions complement each other. FAA
seeks to restrict the use of boosters and harnesses on aircraft as
expeditiously as possible to address what that agency has concluded to
be a possible safety problem. NHTSA's rule minimizes the potential for
confusion and misunderstanding on the part of consumers, by preventing
manufacturers from certifying boosters and harnesses for aircraft use
when in fact FAA does not approve of those restraints for such use.
Given the above, a 90-day effective date is in the public interest.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has evaluated the impacts of this rule and has determined
that it is significant within the meaning of the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. The rulemaking
action is significant because of the substantial public interest in
issues involving child seats on aircraft. Further, this rule is a
significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
[[Page 28427]]
While this action is significant because of the public interest
associated with it, NHTSA concludes that this rule will have minimal
impacts. In 1991, there were an estimated 1,200,000 booster seats
produced. The consumer cost of a label is estimated to be $0.09 to
$0.17, and total annual costs of a separate label range from $108,000
to $204,000.
However, adding a sentence to the existing label, most likely the
course of action taken in response to this rulemaking, would cost much
less. This cost might be $0.01 per label, resulting in a total annual
cost of $12,000. Fewer harnesses are produced than booster seats. The
label on a harness is typically cloth, and sewn on to the restraint.
Assuming that 10,000 to 50,000 harnesses are produced annually, the
cost of a label will probably be over $1.00. However, even with this
cost, the cost of the labeling requirement is minimal. Moreover, there
is a possible economic benefit of this rule. Since booster seats and
harnesses will no longer be permitted to be certified for aircraft,
there will be no need to perform the inversion test. Thus, testing
costs to the child restraint manufacturer will be slightly reduced.
Further, the agency believes sales of booster seats and harnesses
will be minimally affected, if at all, by the prohibition against their
certification for aircraft use. NHTSA believes almost all consumers
decide to purchase a child restraint based on their intent to use the
restraint in a motor vehicle, not in aircraft.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has considered the effects of this rule under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. For the reasons noted above and below, I hereby
certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The agency knows of 13
manufacturers of child restraints (not counting vehicle manufacturers
that produce and install built-in restraints), 7 of which are
considered to be small businesses (including Kolcraft, which with an
estimated 500 employees, is on the borderline of being a small
business). This number does not constitute a substantial number of
small entities. Regardless of this number, NHTSA does not believe this
rule will have a significant impact on small businesses. As noted
above, this rulemaking will have a minimal effect on labeling costs and
no effect on child restraint sales.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This rulemaking action has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612. The agency
has determined that this rule will not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.
Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
This rule will not have any retroactive effect. Under section 49
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR Part 571 as
set forth below.
PART 571--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.213 is amended by revising S5.5.2(n) to read as
follows:
Sec. 571.213 Standard No. 213; Child restraint systems.
* * * * *
S5.5.2 * * *
(n) Child restraint systems, other than belt-positioning seats,
harnesses and backless child restraint systems, may be certified as
complying with the provisions of S8. Child restraints that are so
certified shall be labeled with the statement ``This Restraint is
Certified for Use in Motor Vehicles and Aircraft.'' Belt-positioning
seats, harnesses and backless child restraint systems shall be labeled
with the statement ``This Restraint is Not Certified for Use in
Aircraft.'' The statement required by this paragraph shall be in red
lettering and shall be placed after the certification statement
required by S5.5.2(e).
* * * * *
Issued on May 20, 1996.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-13772 Filed 6-03-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13771 Child Restraint Systems
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28416-28423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13771]
[[Page 28415]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Part 91, et al.
49 CFR Part 571
Child Restraint Systems; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 28416]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 125, and 135
[Docket No. 28229; Amendment No. 91-250, 121-255, 125-26, 135-62]
RIN 2120-AF52
Child Restraint Systems
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action withdraws FAA approval for the use of booster
seats and vest- and harness-type child restraint systems in aircraft
during takeoff, landing, and movement on the surface. In addition, this
action emphasizes the existing prohibition in all aircraft against the
use of lap held child restraint systems (including belly belts). This
action is needed because the FAA has determined that, during an
aircraft crash, the banned devices may put children in a potentially
worse situation than the allowable alternatives.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 3, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donell Pollard, (AFS-203), Air
Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20591;
Telephone (202) 267-3735.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Backround
The FAA is concerned about the safety of children who use certain
forms of child restraint systems aboard aircraft. In 1992. The FAA set
forth in Secs. 91.107(a), 121.311(b), 125.211(b), and 135.128(a) the
child restraint systems acceptable for use in aircraft by imposing
labeling requirements and certain use requirements. Since that time the
FAA has supplemented these rules with advisory material and with a
public information leaflet entitled, ``Child/Infant Safety Seats
Recommended for Use in Aircraft.''
In September 1994, the FAA issued a report entitled, ``The
Performance of Child Restraint Devices in Transport Airplane Passenger
Seats'' (the ``CAMI'' study). The study found that, as a class of child
restraint devices, shield-type booster seats, in combination with other
factors, contributed to an abdominal pressure measurement higher than
in other means of protection while not preventing a head impact. The
study found that fundamental design characteristics of shield-type
booster seats made their belt paths incompatible with aircraft seat
belts. In addition, the study found that vest- and harness-type devices
allowed excessive forward body excursion, resulting in the test dummy
sliding off the front of the seat with a high likelihood of the child's
entire body impacting the seat back of the seat directly in front of
it. Rebound acceleration presented further risk of injury. Also, the
study found that belly belts allowed the test dummy to make severe
contact with the back of the seat in the row in front of the test dummy
and that a child may be crushed by the forward bending motion of the
adult to whom the child is attached. The research involved dynamic
impact tests with a variety of certified child restraints installed in
transport airplane passenger seats at the 16g peak loads required in 14
CFR Sec. 25.562(b)(2). Some of the tests of child restraint systems
were configured to represent a typical multi-row seat installation and
included testing the effects of the occupant impact against the backs
of seats. The tests investigated transport airplane passenger seat
compatibility with child restraints. A copy of the study is included in
the rulemaking docket established for this rulemaking.
On May 19, 1995, the FAA issued Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) No. 95-7 (60 FR 30690, June 9, 1995). The NPRM proposed to
withdraw FAA approval for the use of booster seats and vest- and
harness-type child restraint systems in aircraft during takeoff,
landing, and movement on the surface. In addition, the NPRM emphasized
the existing prohibition against the use in all aircraft of lap-held
child restraint systems (including belly belts). The rule language
adopted by this final rule has not been changed from the rule language
that was proposed.
Also, in June 1995, the FAA issued a Report to Congress concerning
Child Restraint Systems. A copy of this report is included in the
rulemaking docket established for this rulemaking.
Under present regulations a child who has not reached his or her
second birthday (infant) is not required to have a separate seat aboard
an aircraft. This means that the person accompanying an infant may
choose to hold the infant during flight. If the accompanying adult
wishes to put the infant in a child restraint system on a passenger
seat, the airline may require the adult to purchase a separate ticket
for the infant. Whether or not the airline requires the purchase of a
ticket for the infant, a separate passenger seat is required if a child
restraint is to be used (14 CFR Secs. 121.311(c), 125.211(c), and
135.128(b)).
The provisions of Secs. 91.107, 121.311, 125.211, and 135.128
identify those child restraints that are approved for use aboard
aircraft. These child restraint provisions also apply whenever a child
restraint is used for a child 2 years old or older who is required to
have a separate seat on the aircraft. A child 2 years old or older must
either be properly secured in an approved child restraint or properly
secured with a safety belt in a passenger seat.
The FAA's 1992 determination as to which child restraint systems
would be approved for use aboard aircraft was based on many years of
work by both the FAA and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA). In the 1970's, NHTSA adopted dynamic testing
requirements for child restraint systems for use in automobiles. In the
mid 1980's, the FAA and NHTSA undertook an effort to develop a common
approach to the approval of child restraints for aircraft use. Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213 (49 CFR Sec. 571.213) was
amended to provide criteria for manufacturers' self-certification of
child restraints that were appropriate for both aircraft and
automobiles.
FMVSS No. 213, as revised, is the current U.S. standard, and has
allowed hundreds of models of seats to be approved, including booster-
type child restraint systems (``booster seats'') and vest- and harness-
type devices. The current FAA child restraint rules do not specifically
refer to FMVSS No. 213. However, FMVSS No. 213 is the basis for the
labels required under the FAA rules.
The current FAA rules on child restraint systems permit the use of
child restraint systems only if they bear a proper label(s), meet
certain use requirements, and meet adult accompaniment requirements.
Approved labels fall into three categories as follows:
1. Seats manufactured to U.S. standards between January 1, 1981,
and February 25, 1985, must bear a label that states ``This child
restraint system conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicles
safety standards.'' However, vest- and harness-type child restraint
systems manufactured before February 26, 1985, are not approved for use
on aircraft even if they bear this label.
2. Seats manufactured to U.S. standards on or after February 26,
1985, must bear the following two labels:
(i) ``This child restraint system conforms to all applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standards''; and
(ii) ``THIS RESTRAINT IS CERTIFIED FOR USE IN MOTOR VEHICLES AND
AIRCRAFT'', in red lettering.
[[Page 28417]]
3. Seats that are not manufactured to approved U.S. standards must
bear either a label showing approval of a foreign government or a label
showing that the seats were manufactured under the standards of the
United Nations. While the current rule language disallows vest- and
harness-type child restraint systems manufactured before February 26,
1985, some of these systems manufactured after that date meet U.S.,
foreign government, or United Nations requirements.
The use requirements for child restraint systems are as follows:
1. The restraint system must be properly secured to an approved
forward-facing seat or berth;
2. The child must be properly secured in the restraint system and
must not exceed the specified weight limit for the restraint system;
and
3. The restraint system must bear the appropriate label(s).
Because lap held child restraint systems (belly belts) are not
secured to a forward-facing seat or berth, but instead are secured to
the adult, they cannot be used under existing rules. Nonetheless, the
FAA has decided that it is important to emphasize this prohibition and
has added clarifying language to the existing rules.
The adult accompaniment provisions for child restraint systems
require that the child be accompanied by a parent, guardian, or
attendant designated by the child's parent or guardian to attend to the
safety of the child during the flight.
Discussion of Comments
The FAA received ten comments in response to the proposed rule. The
comments were received from Little Cargo, Inc., a child restraint
manufacturer; the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA); the Air
Transport Association of America (ATA); United Air Lines, Inc. (UAL);
two members of the Asia Pacific Cabin Safety Working Group (APCS
Working Group); Cosco, Inc., a child restraint manufacturer; the United
Kingdom's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA); the Joint Aviation
Authorities (JAA); and an individual parent.
UAL supported the proposal, but stated that the effective date of
any new regulations should be consistent with reasonable recurrent
training schedules. In addition, UAL stated that changes in staff
training would result in added costs to air carriers, but they did not
quantify these costs.
FAA Response: The FAA has determined that the regulations should be
effective in 90 days. UAL did not suggest a specific time frame in its
comment, but the FAA has determined that a 90-day effective date should
afford air carriers sufficient time to get the necessary information to
all affected flight crewmembers and that it is unnecessary to
synchronize the dissemination of this information with recurrent
training. No data were presented by UAL or other commenters on any cost
issues. Compliance costs, however, are discussed in the economic
analysis set out in this preamble.
AFA, while supporting the proposal, stated that it continues to
actively pursue the mandatory use of child restraint devices. In
addition, AFA disagreed with the FAA assertion that if parents must
purchase a separate seat to use an approved child restraint device,
they would drive rather than fly. They stated that the FAA assumptions
on this issue are unrealistic and flawed and do not take into account
the impact of low-cost airlines and their enormous appeal to the
family/tourist end of the travel market. The AFA stated that a family
who is predisposed to buy a ticket would go ahead and purchase a
separate ticket to use with an approved and recommended child restraint
device.
FAA Response: The FAA has evaluated the costs and benefits
associated with child restraint devices three times since 1990. The
first report was prepared in 1990, the second report in 1993, and the
third report in June 1995. AFA's comment was based on information
contained in the second report. The third report, submitted to Congress
on June 7, 1995, analyzed alternative scenarios. The scenario analyses
concluded that if any significant charge is made for infant occupancy
of a seat, the expected result is diversion to automobiles and a net
increase in infant and adult fatalities and injuries. The study
referenced by AFA was based on information from the second report. The
AFA study simply documented observed market behavior associated with
the entry of low cost carriers into a market and found that average
fares fall and passenger volume increases. These findings are
consistent with the FAA's findings and conclusions in all three studies
on this issue. In addition, the FAA agrees with the AFA that a family
who is predisposed to buy a ticket would purchase a separate ticket to
use with an approved and recommended child restraint device. The above
studies, however, indicate that very few families seem predisposed to
purchasing tickets for their infants.
ATA commented that it was concerned about enforcement issues caused
by labels in a foreign language and the problem of determining whether
a child is within the weight restrictions for a restraint system. The
ATA is also concerned about the overall effectiveness of child
restraint systems. In addition, ATA stated that steps must be taken to
address the problem of inconsistent FAA guidance and recommended that
industry bodies assist the FAA in identifying possible problem areas
before they arise.
FAA Response: This rulemaking prohibits the use of booster seats
and vest- and harness-type devices by children, even if they bear an
approved label. Therefore, enforcement issues concerning labels in
foreign languages are not relevant to this final rule. Nor is the
question of whether the child is within the weight limits specified on
the label.
The FAA acknowledges ATA's concern that there could be compliance
problems concerning child restraint devices that bear labels indicating
that they are certified for use aboard aircraft when in fact they are
not approved for use aboard aircraft. A companion rule issued by NHTSA,
published in today's Federal Register, amends a provision in FMVSS No.
213 that permits booster seats and vest- and harness-type devices to be
certified for use in aircraft. In view of the FAA's decision to
withdraw approval of booster seats and vest- and harness-type devices
for use on aircraft, NHTSA believes continuing to permit the
certification of those restraints for aircraft use will likely be
confusing to the public. Accordingly, NHTSA's rule no longer permits
those restraints to be certified for aircraft use, and instead requires
manufacturers to label these restraints as not certified for use in
aircraft. Also, in conjunction with this rulemaking, the FAA will
embark on a public education program designed to provide parents with
the information necessary to make an informed decision about the use of
child restraint devices on aircraft. The FAA understands that parents
may be confused when trying to determine what type of child restraint
device is best for their child. If clear guidance is readily available
to parents concerning child restraint devices for aircraft, the FAA
expects that they will choose an approved device in order to provide
the safest traveling environment for their children. The FAA needs the
assistance of air carriers, however, to enforce the regulations.
With regard to the ATA's recommendation that industry bodies assist
the FAA in identifying possible problem areas before they arise, the
FAA always welcomes input from industry and will continue to seek such
input on this issue. In response to ATA's concern about inconsistent
internal FAA guidance, the FAA notes
[[Page 28418]]
that information contained in Flight Standards Information Bulletins,
Advisory Circulars, etc., will be reviewed to ensure that they
correctly reflect the new requirements in this rulemaking, so there
should not be any conflicts.
Little Cargo stated that vest- and harness-type devices should not
be prohibited until the FAA gathers additional information and
performance data on them. It is concerned that the FAA's decision to
ban vest- and harness-type devices was based on inadequate testing and
that such restraints could be modified to perform satisfactorily.
Little Cargo stated that the prohibition of vest- and harness-type
devices was based primarily on one uninstrumented test in contrast to
the breadth of tests conducted on the other types of child restraint
devices.
FAA Response: In response to Little Cargo's concern that only one
type of test was performed on the vest- and harness-type device, the
FAA notes that during dynamic testing, unacceptable head and body
excursions and vertical displacement of the anthropomorphic test dummy
was observed to the extent that the type of instrumented tests that
other child restraint devices underwent was deemed not necessary for
the harness. If the unsafe characteristics that all these devices share
change in the future, the prohibition can be re-examined.
Little Cargo also stated that the FAA has significant performance
concerns with all available forward facing child restraints, but is
only prohibiting certain categories of these devices, including vest-
and harness-type devices.
FAA Response: When considering which, if any, child restraint
devices should be prohibited, the FAA looked at the alternatives
available for children within the weight limits specified by child
restraint manufacturers. The FAA has determined that most children who
are within the weight specifications of booster seats (30 to 60 pounds)
would be better protected in a passenger seat lap belt than in a
booster seat because there would be less abdominal loading in a lap
belt. For a child in the 30 to 60 pound range, a lap belt should remain
across the pelvis and not directly load the abdomen. Because forward
facing devices have rigid backs, unlike booster seats, the FAA has
determined that children in the 30 to 40 pound range would be better
protected in a forward facing device than in a booster seat because
there is a decreased risk of abdominal loading in a forward facing
device than in a booster seat. In addition, the FAA determined that
children who are within the manufacturer's weight specifications of
vest- and harness-type devices (25 to 50 pounds) would be better
protected in a passenger seat lap belt or a forward facing child
restraint device than in a vest- and harness-type device. Forward
facing child restraint devices are designed for children from 20 to 40
pounds. While some forward facing child restraint devices do not
provide a desired level of protection in a worst case survivable
aircraft crash, there are no better alternative availables at this
time. Also, because forward facing devices and passenger seat lap belts
prevent the extreme body excursions observed in the harness test, most
children within this weight specification for vest- and harness-type
devices (25 to 50 pounds) would be better protected in either forward
facing devices or lap belts.
In addition, Little Cargo stated that, in Notice No. 95-7, the FAA
concluded that children weighing between 25 and 50 pounds, and even
children under 2 years old, would be safer in a passenger seat lap belt
than in a vest restraint. Little Cargo is concerned that using lap
belts as the sole restraining device places enhanced stress on a
child's abdomen that could lead to injury.
FAA Response: While the FAA stated that, if a child under 2 falls
in the weight use limits recommended by vest and harness manufacturers,
the child would be safer in a passenger seat restrained by a lap belt
than in a vest- or harness-type device if no other approved device were
available, the FAA went on to state that a child falling within the
weight limits of a vest- or harness-type device (25 to 40 pounds),
would be better protected in a forward facing child restraint device
than in a lap belt. In addition, the study noted that the lap belt
remained across the pelvis of the 24-month old dummy throughout the
impact and did not appear to directly load the abdomen. Thus, CAMI
testing indicates that Little Cargo's concerns about abdominal loading
are unfounded.
Little Cargo also questioned whether the impact of excessive
submarining is not potentially safer than the excessive head excursion/
head strike observed with 6 out of 8 forward facing restraints.
Similarly, Cosco questioned why there is more concern for abdominal
loading than the high HIC levels evidenced in the forward facing child
restraint devices.
FAA Response: While forward facing child restraint devices may not
presently provide a desired level of protection in a worst case
survivable aircraft crash, there are no better alternatives available
at this time. Although Little Cargo and Cosco questioned if submarining
is better than the head injury threat seen with forward facing devices,
it is important to note that neither the booster seats nor the vest-or
harness-type device tested by CAMI performed in a manner that would
prevent head impact. It is not correct to say there would be little or
no risk of a head injury with booster seats or vest- or harness-type
devices. CAMI testing clearly shows that booster seats do not protect
the head because of an unacceptable degree of head excursion in an
aircraft environment. Forward facing devices, with rigid backs, reduce
the risk of exposure to abdominal injury when compared to booster
seats. Forward facing devices offer protection from the risk of
abdominal injury and, unlike vest- and harness-type devices, prevent
excessive body excursion.
Cosco questioned the proposed ban since it was based on a small
sampling of booster seats and vest- and harness-type devices. Cosco
believes that the problems encountered with the vest- and harness-type
device tested are solvable and that all such restraints should not be
banned based on the experience of just one.
FAA Response: The FAA has determined that at this time all vest-
and harness-type devices have certain inherent critical design factors
that preclude them from performing adequately in an aircraft seat. The
testing, while only performed on a small sample of such devices,
confirmed the basic problems with the design of the devices.
In regard to the FAA's request for comments on whether abdominal
loading by itself is a predictor of injury, Cosco stated that
rulemaking cannot be predicated on abstract numbers when the baseline
for serious injury is undetermined. Cosco also stated that shield-type
booster seats keep lap belts off a child's stomach whereas lap belts
might become repositioned over the stomach because children often move
around so much while in the lap belt.
FAA Response: The FAA acknowledges that the baseline for serious
injury from abdominal loading is undetermined. However, the CAMI study
found that shield-type booster seats, in combination with other
factors, contributed to an abdominal pressure measurement higher than
in other means of protection. In certifying aircraft seats and belts,
any evidence of abdominal loading is considered grounds for
disapproving a design. For many years, the FAA has not approved any
design of passenger restraint that showed evidence of imposing
restraint loads on the abdomen. It is accepted
[[Page 28419]]
practice among restraint designers that the abdomen is not a load-
carrying body segment. The unique nature of airline seats, where seat
back breakover will cause a child in a booster seat to be crushed
between the booster seat's shield and the crash forces of the adult in
the row behind, are of sufficient concern to the FAA to prohibit the
use of booster seats in aircraft during takeoff, landing, and movement
on the surface.
The FAA notes that Cosco, like the FAA, seems concerned about the
dangers of abdominal loading. In its comment, Cosco states that ``in
motor vehicles, children often move around so much that the lap belt
becomes repositioned over the stomach, where it can cause serious
injury in even a minor crash * * *. Therefore, a shield booster, which
keeps the lap belt off the child's stomach would be a significant
improvement in most cases * * *'' In addition, Cosco states that
shield-type booster seats, which keep a lap belt off a child's stomach,
would be a significant improvement in rough landings, even if its crash
protection were less than a lap belt alone (since survivable crashes
are so rare).
FAA Response: Performance data on the effectiveness of child
restraint devices in ``rough landings'' are not available. However,
because aircraft seat belt anchor points are located considerably
forward of their location in a car, it is unlikely that an aircraft
seat belt will move up into a child's abdomen.
Cosco also stated that parents would be more willing to carry a
small booster seat rather than a larger forward-facing child restraint
device. Cosco believes that they are then more likely to have the
appropriate restraint for the child when they reach their destination
and it will be the one that they are familiar with. Cosco states that
by banning booster seats, parents will be less likely to have an
appropriate restraint for their children when they reach their
destination.
FAA Response: The FAA would like to clarify that the rule as
proposed and adopted prohibits the use of booster seats only during
take off, landing, and movement on the surface. It does not prohibit
their use inflight. Therefore, parents can consider their booster seats
as carry on baggage, use the restraints during the cruise portion of
flight, and still have them readily available when they reach their
destination. These devices can be stowed in overhead bins, in coat
closets, or in some cases under seats. Except for storing the devices
during takeoff, landing, and movement on the surface, this process is
no different that the process a parent would go through before the
prohibition. While the FAA encourages parents to use devices that may
be used throughout the flight, the devices banned by this rule may be
used during cruise.
Cosco also believes that parents may opt to fly with children on
their laps rather than carry on a forward-facing or convertible child
restraint device. They also stated that an educated parent would not
buy a ticket in order to use an approved child restraint device instead
of a vest- and harness-type device. They stated that a harness is much
more convenient to carry around than a convertible forward-facing seat
and therefore the parent may fly with a child or his/her lap rather
than carry a convertible forward-facing seat. Little Cargo also
expressed concerns that, when considering the alternatives of lap-
holding a child, using the passenger seat lap belt alone, or bringing
an approved convertible child restraint system, parents will likely not
choose to carry on a bulky restraint.
FAA Response: While the FAA agrees with Cosco and Little Cargo that
a vest- and harness-type device is probably easier to carry than a
convertible forward facing child restraint device, for most parents the
cost of an airline passenger seat for the infant is probably more
important to the parent than the ease of carrying a child restraint
device. Since the commenters did not provide any specific information
or statistics on this issue, the FAA continues to believe that parents
who are predisposed to buy a ticket for a separate airplane seat for
use with a booster seat or vest- and harness-type device and who have
received education on the effectiveness of the allowable alternatives
in advance of purchasing tickets would purchase a ticket for a separate
seat in order to use an approved and recommended child restraint
device.
In addition, Cosco commented that, of the four booster seats
tested, head excursions for two did not exceed the limits set forth in
FMVSS No. 213.
FAA Response: Although Cosco stated that of the four booster seats
tested, two did not exceed the limits of FMVSS No. 213, in actuality
one of the two booster seats that supposedly did not exceed the limits
of FMVSS No. 213 disintegrated during the test and could not be
analyzed for head excursion. The fact that of the four booster seats
tested, head excursion for one did not exceed the limits set forth in
FMVSS No. 213 is not relevant to the decision to ban shield-type
booster seats. As discussed earlier, seat back breakover, a unique
feature of aircraft seats, presents a threat of abdominal injury.
Backless booster seats, by virtue of fundamental design
characteristics, do not provide protection from this threat. That one
of the four booster seats tested did not exceed the head strike
envelope specified in FMVSS-213 has no bearing on the threat of
abdominal injury.
Cosco also stated that the primary benefit of child restraints on
aircraft is to restrain children in the event of turbulence. They
stated that while certain types of child restraint devices do not
perform well in crash situations, this should not preclude their
overall use since crashes are rare while turbulence is not.
CAA was also concerned about prohibiting devices that can prevent
injury in common occurrences such as flight turbulence.
FAA Response: The FAA is not prohibiting the use of booster seats
and vest-and harness-type devices in cruise portions of flight. The FAA
acknowledges that booster seats and vest- and harness-type devices
might prevent injuries during turbulence and therefore is not
prohibiting their use during cruise portions of flight.
Cosco stated that a design-restrictive ban precludes development of
future products that may prove safe and would be more convenient for
parents to use.
FAA Response: The FAA has determined that, at this time, booster
seats and vest-and harness-type devices put children in a potentially
worse situation than the allowable alternatives. If in the future a
manufacturer designs such a device that the FAA determines is a safe
alternative, it will review the prohibition. The FAA must, however,
prohibit booster seats and vest- and harness-type devices at this time
because of safety concerns. The FAA cannot delay this rule with the
thought that a manufacturer might design a safe booster seat or vest-
and harness-type device in the future or that such a ban precludes a
manufacturer from development future products that may prove safe and
convenient.
CAA stated that in a significant proportion of the cases where
passengers carry small children on aircraft, the alternative to travel
by private car will not be viable, so these passengers will continue to
travel by air, notwithstanding the additional cost. CAA also states
that it is reasonable to conclude that there will be an increase in the
number of people who will carry their children without any form of
restraint if this continues to be permitted.
FAA Response: The FAA's 1995 study on the costs and benefits
associated with child restraint devices addressed CAA's comment that
the alternative to
[[Page 28420]]
travel by private car will not be viable, so passengers will continue
to travel by air notwithstanding the additional cost. While the FAA
agrees that a significant number of families taking long trips will
continue to do so even if a charge is imposed for passenger seats
occupied by infants, the scenario analyses concluded that if any
significant charge is made for infant occupancy of a passenger seat,
there will be some passenger diversion to automobiles and a net
increase in infant and adult fatalities and injuries. The scenario
analyses also concluded that families taking longer trips are less
likely to divert to alternative modes of transportation than people
taking shorter trips. The FAA agrees that there are cases where parents
would fly rather than not take a trip because they do not have a
practical second alternative to flying. In most cases, however, parents
have an alternative to flying. In the 1995 report, the FAA again found
that mandating child restraint devices could cause more deaths and
injuries than it would prevent. Therefore, the FAA will not mandate the
use of child restraint devices for children under 2 years old. A copy
of the report is included in the docket established for this
rulemaking. In addition, the FAA will pursue an education program to
better inform parents about child restraint devices. If clear guidance
is readily available to parents, the FAA expects that they will choose
an approved device, rather than lap holding their children, in order to
provide the safest traveling environment for their children.
CAA and JAA state that they permit the belly belt on the grounds
that it provides a measure of protection to children and/or other
passengers versus lap holding a child.
FAA Response: The FAA would like to emphasize that belly belts are
not permitted under current regulations. Even if belly belts do provide
some measure or protection, the CAMI study found that belly belts
allowed the test dummy to make severe contact with the back of the seat
in the row in front of the test dummy and that a child may be crushed
by the forward bending motion of the adult to whom the child is
attached. Consideration of revising this current prohibition is beyond
the scope of the notice.
The JAA also stated that in a crash or severe air turbulence,
parents are often unable to keep a lap-held child in their arms.
FAA Response: As discussed earlier, the FAA has determined that
mandating child restraint devices could cause more deaths and injuries
than it would prevent. However, the FAA does not encourage lap-holding
children. The FAA expects, with its education campaign providing clear
guidance on child restraint devices, parents will choose an approved
device, rather than lap holding their children, in order to provide the
safest traveling environment for their children. The two members of the
APCS Working Group submitted identical letters that discussed the need
to mandate restraints for children. In addition, they stated that the
FAA's argument that the extra cost to families caused by mandating
child restraint devices would force them to less safe road travel is
invalid since the same cost situation arises when the child is 3 or 4
or 10 years old.
FAA Response: The APCS Working Group's argument is that the extra
cost to families of mandating child restraint devices is no more of a
deterrent to air travel than the price of a ticket for a child of any
age. However, the FAA notes that this argument does not take into
account that ordinarily there is no charge for a lap-held child,
whereas certificate holders very often do charge if a seat is requested
for this infant. Thus, many people would switch to less safe automobile
travel as a result of mandating child restraint usage because unlike
most rulemakings where the compliance costs are passed along to all
travelers, mandatory use of child restraint would impose compliance
costs only on families with infants.
Other commenters raised comments that are beyond the scope of this
rulemaking, such as providing design/certification standards for child
restraint systems that are compatible with existing aircraft seat belt
systems, revising FMVSS-213, changing anchor locations of seat belts,
adopting performance standards for child restraint system, establishing
a child restraint friendly section of aircraft with modified seats, and
clarifying what types of restraints are acceptable.
Editorial Note
The rules, as adopted, make it clear that, while the certificate
holder has the authority to provide a child restraint system, such a
system must be one authorized by the rule. This is to avoid any
misinterpretation of this provision as an exception to the prohibitions
adopted in this final rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated
with this final rule.
Economic Analysis
Changes to Federal regulations are required to undergo several
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs each Federal
agency to propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies
to analyze the economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities.
Third, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess
the effect of regulatory changes on international trade. With respect
to this regulation, the FAA has determined that it: (1) is ``a
significant regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order; (2)
is significant as defined in the Department of Transportation's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (3) will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities; and (4) will not
constitute a barrier to international trade. The FAA does not believe
that this regulation will impose any significant costs on the public.
Therefore, a full regulatory analysis, which includes the
identification and evaluation of cost-reducing alternatives to this
regulation, has not been prepared. Instead, the agency has prepared a
more concise analysis of this regulation that is presented in the
following paragraphs.
Costs and Benefits
There will be some compliance costs associated with this
regulation. This rule will reduce the types of child restraint systems
that can be used during ground movement, takeoff, and landings by
prohibiting the use of all booster seats and vest- and harness-type
child restraint systems during these phases of a flight. The
restrictions on the use of these devices will need to be incorporated
into flight attendant training and included in flight manuals, and this
will impose additional costs on air carriers. For a period of time
after the rule becomes effective, there will also be some public
education necessary and potential flight delays when flight attendant
tell parents who brought prohibited child restraint devices on board
the aircraft that the devices are banned for use during takeoff,
landing, and movement on the ground. The FAA has determined that
booster seats and vest- and harness-type devices put children in a
potentially worse situation than the alternatives during an aircraft
crash. According to the CAMI study, these child restraint systems do
not securely hold a child in place in an aircraft crash, and may
themselves even
[[Page 28421]]
cause harm to a child in the event of a crash. These types of
accidents, while they rarely happen, usually occur during the takeoff
or landing phases of a flight. Thus, prohibiting the use of these child
restraint systems during takeoff and landing will enhance the child's
safety, and the safety benefits will outweigh the slight compliance
costs discussed above. Since it is impractical to expect flight
attendants to monitor whether children are out of banned devices just
prior to takeoff, the FAA is prohibiting the use of these devices
during movement on the surface also.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily or
disproportionately burdened by Federal regulations. The RFA requires a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if a rule will have ``a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' FAA Order
2100.14A outlines FAA's procedures and criteria for implementing the
RFA. Small entities are defined as independently owned and operated
small businesses and small not-for-profit organizations.
This rule will impose some unquantified costs on air carriers.
These costs include changing manuals and training flight attendants
about the restrictions on the use of certain child restraint devices.
Initially, there may be some public education necessary and possible
flight delays when flight attendants tell parents or guardians that
they may not use certain child restraint devices during ground
movement, takeoff, or landing. However, the FAA believes that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
This rule will not constitute a barrier to international trade,
including the export of American goods and services to foreign
countries and the import of foreign goods and services to the United
States.
Federalism Implications
The regulations herein will not have substantial direct effects on
the states, on the relationship between the national government and
that of any state, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
among the various levels of government. The respondents affected by the
amendments are private citizens, not state governments. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
regulation will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Conclusion
Because of the substantial interest of the public in this subject
matter, and based on the findings in the Regulatory Flexibility
Determination and the International Trade Impact Analysis, the FAA has
determined that this regulation is a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866. For the same reason, this rule is
considered significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979). In addition, it is certified that this
rule 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. Because the economic impact of this rule is
considered minimal, a formal regulatory evaluation has not been
prepared.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 91
Aircraft, Aviation safety.
14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Charter flights, Safety,
Transportation.
14 CFR Part 125
Aircraft, Aviation safety.
14 CFR Part 135
Air taxis, Aircraft, Aviation safety.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends parts 91, 121, 125, and 135 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR parts 91, 121, 125, and 135) as follows:
PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111,
44701, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306,
46315, 46316, 46502, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531.
2. Section 91.107 is amended by removing the last sentence in
paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(B)(1) immediately preceding the semicolon; by
removing the final ``and'' in paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(B)(3); by revising
paragraph (a)(3)(i); by revising the introductory text of paragraph
(a)(3)(iii)(B); and by adding a new paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(B)(4) to read
as follows:
Sec. 91.107 Use of safety belts, shoulder harnesses, and child
restraint systems.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Be held by an adult who is occupying an approved seat or berth,
provided that the person being held has not reached his or her second
birthday and does not occupy or use any restraining device;
* * * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(B)(4) of this
action, the approved child restraint system bears one or more labels as
follows:
* * * * *
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, booster-
type child restraint systems (as defined in Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213)), vest- and harness-type child
restraint systems, and lap held child restraints are not approved for
use in aircraft; and
* * * * *
PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL
OPERATIONS
3. The authority citation for Part 121 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702,
44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-44904,
44912, 46105.
4. Section 121.311 is amended by removing the last sentence in
paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) immediately preceding the semicolon; by
removing the final ``and'' in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C); by revising
paragraph (b)(1); by revising the introductory text of paragraph
(b)(2)(ii); by adding a new paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(D); and by revising
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.311 Seats, safety belts, and shoulder harnesses.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Be held by an adult who is occupying an approved seat or berth,
provided the child has not reached his or her second birthday and the
child does not occupy or use any restraining device; or
(2) * * *
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(D) of this section,
the approved child restraint system bears one or more labels as
follows:
* * * * *
(D) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, booster-
type child restraint systems (as defined in Federal Motor Vehicle
Standard No. 213
[[Page 28422]]
(49 CFR 571.213)), vest- and harness-type child restraint systems, and
lap held child restraints are not approved for use in aircraft; and
* * * * *
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the
following prohibitions apply to certificate holders:
(1) No certificate holder may permit a child, in an aircraft, to
occupy a booster-type child restraint system, a vest-type child
restraint system, a harness-type child restraint system, or a lap held
child restraint system during take off, landing, and movement on the
surface.
(2) Except as required in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, no
certificate holder may prohibit a child, if requested by the child's
parent, guardian, or designated attendant, from occupying a child
restraint system furnished by the child's parent, guardian, or
designated attendant provided--
(i) The child holds a ticket for an approved seat or berth or such
seat or berth is otherwise made available by the certificate holder for
the child's use;
(ii) The requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section are
met;
(iii) The requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section are
met; and
(iv) The child restraint system has one or more of the labels
described in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A) through (b)(2)(ii)(C) of this
section.
(3) This section does not prohibit the certificate holder from
providing child restraint systems authorized by this section or,
consistent with safe operating practices, determining the most
appropriate passenger seat location for the child restraint system.
* * * * *
PART 125--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A SEATING
CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF
6,000 POUNDS OR MORE
5. The authority citation for Part 125 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44710-
44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722.
6. Section 125.211 is amended by removing the last sentence in
paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) immediately preceding the semicolon; by
removing the final ``and'' in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C); by revising
paragraph (b)(1); by revising the introductory text of paragraph
(b)(2)(ii); by adding a new paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(D); and by revising
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 125.211 Seat and safety belts.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Be held by an adult who is occupying an approved seat or berth,
provided the child has not reached his or her second birthday and the
child does not occupy or use any restraining device; or
(2) * * *
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(D) of this section,
the approved child restraint system bears one or more labels as
follows:
* * * * *
(D) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, booster-
type child restraint systems (as defined in Federal Motor Vehicle
Standard No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213)), vest- and harness-type child
restraint systems, and lap held child restraints are not approved for
use in aircraft; and
* * * * *
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the
following prohibitions apply to certificate holders:
(1) No certificate holder may permit a child, in an aircraft, to
occupy a booster-type child restraint system, a vest-type child
restraint system, a harness-type child restraint system, or a lap held
child restraint system during take off, landing, and movement on the
surface.
(2) Except as required in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, no
certificate holder may prohibit a child, if requested by the child's
parent, guardian, or designated attendant, from occupying a child
restraint system furnished by the child's parent, guardian, or
designated attendant provided:
(1) The child holds a ticket for an approved seat or berth or such
seat or berth is otherwise made available by the certificate holder for
the child's use;
(ii) The requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section are
met;
(iii) The requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section are
met; and
(iv) The child restraint system has one or more of the labels
described in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A) through (b)(2)(ii)(C) of this
section.
(3) This section does not prohibit the certificate holder from
providing child restraint systems authorized by this section or,
consistent with safe operating practices, determining the most
appropriate passenger seat location for the child restraint system.
* * * * *
PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON-DEMAND OPERATIONS
7. The authority citation for Part 135 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709,
44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722.
8. Section 135.128 is amended by removing the last sentence in
paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A) immediately preceding the semicolon; by
removing the final ``and'' in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(C); by revising
paragraph (a)(1); by revising the introductory text of paragraph
(a)(2)(ii); by adding a new paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(D); and by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 135.128 Use of safety belts and child restraint systems.
(a) * * *
(1) Be held by an adult who is occupying an approved seat or berth,
provided the child has not reached his or her second birthday and the
child does not occupy or use any restraining device; or
(2) * * *
(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(D) of this section,
the approved child restraint system bears one or more labels as
follows:
* * * * *
(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, booster-
type child restraint systems (as defined in Federal Motor Vehicle
Standard No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213)), vest- and harness-type child
restraint systems, and lap held child restraints are not approved for
use in aircraft; and
* * * * *
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the
following prohibitions apply to certificate holders:
(1) No certificate holder may permit a child, in an aircraft, to
occupy a booster-type child restraint system, a vest-type child
restraint system, a harness-type child restraint system, or a lap held
child restraint system during take off, landing, or movement on the
surface.
(2) Except as required in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, no
certificate holder may prohibit a child, if requested by the child's
parent, guardian, or designated attendant, from occupying a child
restraint system furnished by the child's parent, guardian, or
designated attendant provided:
(i) The child holds a ticket for an approved seat or berth or such
seat or berth is otherwise made available by the certificate holder for
the child's use;
(ii) The requirements of paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section are
met;
(iii) The requirements of paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section are
met; and
(iv) The child restraint system has one or more of the labels
described in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A) through (a)(2)(ii)(C) of this
section.
[[Page 28423]]
(3) This section does not prohibit the certificate holder from
providing child restraint systems authorized by this or, consistent
with safe operating practices, determining the most appropriate
passenger seat location for the child restraint system.
Issued in Washington, D.C., on May 24, 1996.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-13771 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13721 Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Excise Tax; Registration Requirements; Correction
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28053]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13721]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Parts 40 and 48
[TD 8659]
RIN 1545-AR92
Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Excise Tax; Registration Requirements;
Correction
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Correction to final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final regulations [TD
8659] which were published in the Federal Register for Thursday, March
14, 1996 (61 FR 10450). The final regulations relate to the taxes on
gasoline and diesel fuel reflecting and implementing certain changes
made by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 14, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Boland (202) 622-3130 (not a
toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The final regulations that are subject to these corrections are
under sections 4081 and 4101 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Need for Correction
As published, [TD 8659] contains errors that are in need of
clarification.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, the publication of final regulations which are the
subject of FR Doc. 96-5586 is corrected as follows:
Sec. 48.4101-1 [Corrected]
On page 10460, column 2, paragraph (f)(3)(ii)(D), lines 4 and 5 are
corrected by merging the two lines to read ``paragraph (j) of this
section, without regard to''.
Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 96-13721 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13610 Airworthiness Directives; Beech (Raytheon) Model BAe 125 Series 1000A and Model Hawker 1000 Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28031-28033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13610]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-180-AD; Amendment 39-9641; AD 96-11-17]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Beech (Raytheon) Model BAe 125 Series
1000A and Model Hawker 1000 Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain Beech (Raytheon) Model BAe 125 series 1000A and
Model Hawker 1000 airplanes, that requires a one-time inspection for
adequate clearances between, and damage to, the flap cables and
turnbuckles, airbrakes cables and turnbuckles, and all other flight
control cables and turnbuckles at keel subframe 15A; and various
follow-on actions, if necessary. This amendment is prompted by reports
of chafing due to insufficient clearance between the flaps turnbuckle
and the subframe, and between the airbrakes cable and the subframe. The
actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent such chafing,
which could result in damage to the flaps turnbuckle and the airbrakes
cable, and subsequent fraying or seizing of the flight control cables.
These conditions, if not corrected, could result in restriction or loss
of the flight controls.
DATES: Effective July 9, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of July 9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained
[[Page 28032]]
from Raytheon Aircraft Company, Manager Service Engineering, Hawker
Customer Support Department, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 67201-0085.
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:
Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer, Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206) 227-2797; 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 Beech (Raytheon) Model BAe
125 series 1000A and Model Hawker 1000 airplanes was published in the
Federal Register on March 12, 1996 (61 FR 9959). That action proposed
to require a one-time visual inspection for adequate clearances
between, and/or damage to, the flap cables and turnbuckles, airbrakes
cables and turnbuckles, and all other flight control cables and
turnbuckles at keel subframe 15A (left-and right-hand side); and
various follow-on actions, if necessary.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response
to the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.
Changes to the Final Rule
The FAA has revised the final rule to correctly designate the
affected airplane models as ``Beech (Raytheon) Model BAe 125 series
1000A and Model Hawker 1000 airplanes.''
Additionally, a new ``Note 2'' has been added to the final rule to
clarify that airworthiness authorities of countries in which Beech
(Raytheon) Model BAe 125 series 800B and BAe 125 series 1000B airplanes
are approved for operation should consider adopting corrective action
that is similar to that required by this AD, since those airplanes are
similar in design to the affected airplanes.
Conclusion
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 changes previously
described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of
the AD.
Cost Impact
The FAA estimates that 25 airplanes of U.S. registry will be
affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour 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 AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,500, or $60 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.
Regulatory Impact
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 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-11-17 Beech Aircraft Corporation (Formerly DeHavilland; Hawker
Siddeley; British Aerospace, PLC; Raytheon Corporate Jets, Inc.):
Amendment 39-9641. Docket 95-NM-180-AD.
Applicability: Model BAe 125 series 1000A and Model Hawker 1000
airplanes, as listed in Hawker Service Bulletin SB.27-168, dated
July 17, 1995; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (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.
Note 2: Beech (Raytheon) Model BAe 125 series 800B and BAe 125
series 1000B airplanes are similar in design to the airplanes that
are subject to the requirements of this AD and, therefore, also may
be subject to the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. However, as
of the effective date of this AD, those models are not type
certificated for operation in the United States. Airworthiness
authorities of countries in which the Model BAe 125 series 800B and
BAe 125 series 1000B airplanes are approved for operation should
consider adopting corrective action, applicable to those models,
that is similar to the corrective action required by this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent restriction or loss of the flight controls due to
insufficient clearance and resultant chafing and damage to the flaps
cable and/or turnbuckle and the airbrakes cable, accomplish the
following:
(a) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD: Perform
a one-time detailed visual inspection for adequate working
clearances and for damage of the flap, airbrakes, and other flight
control cables and turnbuckles with the structure at keel subframe
15A (left- and right-hand sides) specified in Hawker Service
Bulletin SB.27-168, dated July 17, 1995. Perform the inspection in
accordance with that service bulletin. The detailed visual
inspection for working clearances shall be conducted for each
affected flight control through its full range of travel.
[[Page 28033]]
(1) If all clearances are within the limits specified in the
service bulletin, and no damage is found: No further action is
required by this AD.
(2) If the clearance for the flaps controls is outside the
limits specified in the service bulletin: Prior to further flight,
accomplish Modification SB 27-168-253705B in accordance with the
service bulletin.
(3) If the clearance for the airbrakes controls is outside the
limits specified in the service bulletin: Prior to further flight,
repair in accordance with the service bulletin.
(4) If any cable is found to be damaged, and the damage exceeds
the limits defined in Chapter 20-10-31 of the Airplane Maintenance
Manual: Prior to further flight, replace the damaged cable with a
new cable in accordance with the service bulletin.
(5) If any turnbuckle, keel subframe, or polythene strip is
found to be damaged: Prior to further flight, repair in accordance
with a method approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-
113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA
Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send
it to the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 3: 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 Hawker Service
Bulletin SB.27-168, dated July 17, 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 Raytheon Aircraft Company, Manager Service
Engineering, Hawker Customer Support Department, P.O. Box 85,
Wichita, Kansas 67201-0085. 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 July 9, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 23, 1996.
John J. Hickey,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-13610 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13609 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-80 Series Airplanes, and Model MD-88 and MD-90 Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28028-28029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13609]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-188-AD; Amendment 39-9642; AD 96-11-18]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-80 Series
Airplanes, and Model MD-88 and MD-90 Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-80 series airplanes,
and Model MD-88 and MD-90 airplanes, that requires a one-time
measurement of the length of the oxygen mask lanyards of the passenger
service unit (PSU), and modification of lanyards that are longer than
the proper length. This amendment is prompted by a report that the
length of the oxygen mask lanyards of the PSU were found to be too
long, apparently due to improper installation during production. The
actions specified by this AD are intended to ensure that the length of
these oxygen mask lanyards is correct, so that the oxygen canister will
be properly activated when needed during an emergency.
DATES: Effective July 9, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of July 9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,
Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications
Business Administration, Department C1-L51 (2-60). 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 FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol
Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walter Eierman, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California
90712; telephone (310) 627-5336; fax (310) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 McDonnell Douglas Model
DC-9-80 series airplanes, and Model MD-88 and MD-90 airplanes was
published in the Federal Register on February 12, 1996 (61 FR 5334).
That action proposed to require, for Model DC-9-80 series airplanes and
Model MD-88 airplanes, a one-time measurement of the length of the
oxygen mask lanyards of the PSU, and modification, if necessary. For
Model MD-90 airplanes, the action proposed to require modification of
the oxygen mask lanyards of the PSU.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
Support for the Proposal
Several commenters support the proposed rule.
Request To Extend Compliance Time
Two commenters request that the compliance time be extended from
the proposed 24 months to 36 months. One of these commenters states
that it would have to special schedule its fleet of airplanes in order
to accomplish the proposed measurement and modification within the
proposed compliance time; this would entail considerable additional
expenses and schedule disruptions.
The FAA does not concur. In developing an appropriate compliance
time for this action, the FAA considered not only the degree of urgency
associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the
practical aspect of completing the required modification within an
interval of time that parallels normal scheduled maintenance for the
majority of affected operators. However, under the provisions of
paragraph (c) of the final rule, the FAA may approve requests for
adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted to
substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level
of safety.
Request To Provide Time Frame of Improper Installation
One commenter maintains that the unsafe condition occurred because
correct procedures were not followed during aircraft production. In
light of this, the commenter requests that the proposal be revised to
provide a time frame during which the addressed problem occurred and
allow operators to inspect a sampling of airplanes produced during that
time to determine if the lanyard problem is present on those airplanes.
The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The FAA is
unable to determine the time frame during which the apparent improper
installation occurred because the manufacturing procedures that existed
during the production of all of the affected airplanes did not contain
provisions for monitoring the length of the lanyard. Therefore, all
airplanes listed in the applicability of the final rule may be subject
to the addressed unsafe condition.
Conclusion
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 as proposed.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 1,200 McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-80
series airplanes, Model MD-88 airplanes, and Model MD-90 airplanes of
the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 650
airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.
For airplanes on which inspection of the lanyard is required, it
will take approximately 81 work hours per airplane to accomplish the
required inspection, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour.
Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection required by
this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $4,860 per airplane.
For airplanes on which modification of the lanyard is required, it
will take approximately 121 work hours per airplane to accomplish the
required modification at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour.
Based on these figures, the cost impact of the
[[Page 28029]]
modification required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$7,260 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are 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.
Regulatory Impact
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 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-11-18 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-9642. Docket 95-NM-188-AD.
Applicability: Model DC-9-80 series airplanes and Model MD-88
airplanes, having manufacturer's fuselage numbers 924 through 1094
inclusive, and 1095 through 2113 inclusive; and Model MD-90
airplanes, having manufacturer's fuselage numbers 2094 through 2098
inclusive, and 2100; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To ensure that the length of the oxygen mask lanyards is
correct, so that the oxygen canister will be properly activated when
needed during an emergency, accomplish the following:
(a) For Model DC-9-80 series airplanes and Model MD-88
airplanes, having manufacturer's fuselage numbers 1095 through 2113
inclusive; and Model MD-90 airplanes: Within 2 years after the
effective date of this AD, perform a one-time measurement of the
length of the oxygen mask lanyards of the passenger service unit
(PSU) from the loop on the firing pin or aluminum ring to the mask,
in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD80-35-022,
dated August 29, 1995 (for Model DC-9-80 series airplanes and Model
MD-88 airplanes), or McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD90-35-001,
dated August 29, 1995 (for Model MD-90 airplanes), as applicable.
(1) If the length of all oxygen mask lanyards is found to be
within the limits specified in the applicable service bulletin, no
further action is required by this paragraph.
(2) If the length of any oxygen mask lanyard is found to exceed
the limits specified in the applicable service bulletin, prior to
further flight, modify that oxygen mask lanyard of the PSU in
accordance with the applicable service bulletin.
(b) For Model DC-9-80 series airplanes having manufacturer's
fuselage numbers 924 through 1094 inclusive: Within 2 years after
the effective date of this AD, modify the oxygen mask lanyards of
the PSU in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD80-
35-022, dated August 29, 1995.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(e) The measurement and modification shall be done in accordance
with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD80-35-022, dated August
29, 1995 (for Model DC-9-80 series airplanes and Model MD-88
airplanes), or McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin MD90-35-001, dated
August 29, 1995 (for Model MD-90 airplanes). 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 McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855 Lakewood
Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical
Publications Business Administration, Department C1-L51 (2-60).
Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at
the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,
suite 700, Washington, DC.
(f) This amendment becomes effective on July 9, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 23, 1996.
John J. Hickey,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-13609 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13608 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28029-28031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13608]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-172-AD; Amendment 39-9640; AD 96-11-16]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 Series
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 series airplanes, that
requires a one-time measurement during refueling to determine the
pressure in each collector tank; for certain airplanes, non-destructive
test (NDT) inspections to detect cracking or deformations of the
collector tank ribs on each wing, and repair, if necessary; and
modification of top-hat stringers in each outer wing tank. This
amendment is prompted by a report of damage to the
[[Page 28030]]
ribs of the wing collector tank caused by over-pressure in the
collector tank during refueling. The actions specified by this AD are
intended to prevent cracking and deformation of the wing collector
tanks due to over-pressure, which could result in reduced structural
integrity of the wing.
DATES: Effective July 9, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of July 9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Fokker Aircraft USA, Inc., 1199 North Fairfax Street,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314. 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 E. 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 Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100
series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on December 19,
1995 (60 FR 65256). That action proposed to require:
1. a one-time measurement during refueling to determine the
pressure in each collector tank;
2. for certain airplanes, non-destructive test (NDT) inspections to
detect cracking or deformations of the collector tank ribs on each
wing, and repair, if necessary; and
3. modification of top-hat stringers in each outer wing tank.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
Support for the Proposal
All commenters supported the proposal.
Request Not to Reference New Service Information
Although all of the commenters support the proposal, they have
concerns about the recommended compliance times that are specified in a
recent revision to Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-030. The original
issue of the service bulletin was referenced in the proposal as the
appropriate source of service information related to the proposed
inspection. The commenters point out that Revision 1 of that service
bulletin, which was released on September 27, 1995, now recommends that
the inspection be performed within a shorter time period than that
recommended in the original issue of the service bulletin. The
commenters state that, if the FAA were to reduce the compliance period
of the proposed AD as recommended in Revision 1, then they would be
faced with scheduling problems and/or increased costs resulting from
airplane downtime and labor.
The commenters further point out that Fokker's reason for
recommending the more restrictive compliance time specified in Revision
1, is that further analyses could not completely exclude the
possibility of static electricity build-up during refueling. The
commenters consider this reason to be highly improbable and maintain
that it does not constitute adequate justification for the reduced
compliance time.
For these reasons, the commenters assert that, if the FAA were to
issue a supplemental proposed rule to propose reducing the compliance
to correlate with the recommendations of Revision 1 of the service
bulletin, they would oppose adoption of the AD.
The FAA responds to these commenters' concern by stating that it
does not consider reducing the compliance time of this AD to correlate
with the revised service bulletin to be warranted. The FAA has based
the compliance time requirements of this AD in consideration of the
safety implications, the average utilization rate of the affected
fleet, the practical aspects of an orderly inspection of the fleet
during regular maintenance periods, and the availability of required
modification parts. In addition, the FAA has worked in consultation
with the airworthiness authorities of the Netherlands and with Fokker
to develop the compliance time. The FAA has determined that the
compliance time requirements, as specified in the proposal and in this
final rule, are acceptable to correct the unsafe condition in a timely
manner.
Conclusion
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 as proposed.
Cost Impact
The FAA estimates that 58 airplanes of U.S. registry will be
affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 85 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 AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $295,800, or $5,100 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.
Regulatory Impact
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 U.S.C 106(g), 40113, 44701.
[[Page 28031]]
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-11-16 Fokker: Amendment 39-9640. Docket 95-NM-172-AD.
Applicability: Model F28 Mark 0100 airplanes, serial numbers
11244 through 11277 inclusive, 11279, 11281 through 11287 inclusive,
and 11289 through 11400 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 (g) 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 over-pressurization and/or damage to the wing
collector tanks, which could result in reduced structural integrity
of the wings, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 45 days after the effective date of this AD, perform
a one-time measurement during refueling to determine the pressure in
each collector tank in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-030, dated
December 17, 1994.
Note 2: Pressure Limits Categories are defined in Table 2 of
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-030, dated December 17, 1994.
(b) For Pressure Limits Category 1: Within 2 years after the
effective date of this AD, modify the four affected top-hat
stringers (2.32, 2.33, 2.34, and 2.35) in each outer wing tank area
by removing the restriction blocks, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-
029, Revision 1, dated March 23, 1995.
(c) For Pressure Limits Categories 2 through 5: Except as
provided by paragraph (d) of this AD, prior to the number of
accumulated total flight cycles or within the time specified in
Table 1 of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-030, dated December 17,
1994, whichever occurs earlier, accomplish the requirements of
paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) Perform the Non-Destructive Test (NDT) inspections specified
in Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service
Bulletin SBF100-57-030, dated December 17, 1994, to detect cracking
or deformations of the collector tank ribs on each wing at wing
stations 1825, 2230, and 2635. These inspections are to be performed
in accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-030, dated
December 17, 1994.
(2) Modify the four affected top-hat stringers (2.32, 2.33,
2.34, and 2.35) in each outer wing tank area by removing the
restriction blocks, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-029, Revision 1,
dated March 23, 1995.
(d) For Pressure Limits Category 6, and for airplanes having
pressure limits within the limits specified in Categories 3 through
5 and that have exceeded the number of accumulated total flight
cycles specified in Table 1: Within 100 flight cycles, accomplish
the requirements of paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this AD.
(1) Perform the NDT inspections in accordance with the
procedures of Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker
Service Bulletin SBF100-57-030, dated December 17, 1994. The fueling
pressure must not exceed 25 pounds per square inch (PSI) during
refueling.
(2) Modify the four affected top-hat stringers (2.32, 2.33,
2.34, and 2.35) in each outer wing tank area by removing the
restriction blocks, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-029, Revision 1,
dated March 23, 1995.
(e) For Pressure Limits Category 7: Prior to further flight
following the measurement required by paragraph (a) of this AD,
accomplish the requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this
AD.
(1) Perform the NDT inspections in accordance with the
procedures of Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker
Service Bulletin SBF100-57-030, dated December 17, 1994.
(2) Modify the four affected top-hat stringers (2.32, 2.33,
2.34, and 2.35) in each outer wing tank area by removing the
restriction blocks, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-029, Revision 1,
dated March 23, 1995.
(f) If any cracking or deformation is detected during any
inspection required by this AD, prior to further flight, repair in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Standardization
Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.
(g) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA
Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send
it to the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(h) 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.
(i) The measurement and inspections shall be done in accordance
with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-030, dated December 17, 1994.
The modification shall be done in accordance with Fokker Service
Bulletin SBF100-57-029, Revision 1, dated March 23, 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 Fokker Aircraft USA, Inc., 1199
North Fairfax Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. 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.
(j) This amendment becomes effective on July 9, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 23, 1996.
John J. Hickey,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-13608 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13416 Electrical Engineering Requirements for Merchant Vessels
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28260-28293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13416]
[[Page 28259]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Coast Guard
_______________________________________________________________________
46 CFR Parts 108, et al.
Electrical Engineering Requirements for Merchant Vessels; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 28260]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
46 CFR Parts 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, and 161
[CGD 94-108]
Electrical Engineering Requirements for Merchant Vessels
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As part of the President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative,
the Coast Guard is amending its electrical engineering regulations to
reduce the regulatory burden on the marine industry, purge obsolete and
out-of-date regulations, and eliminate requirements that create an
unwarranted differential between domestic rules and international
standards. This rulemaking harmonizes, where possible, the electrical
engineering regulations with recent amendments to the International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended.
Additionally, this rulemaking dramatically revises certain prescriptive
electrical equipment design, specification, and approval requirements
and replaces them with performance-based requirements that incorporate
international standards.
DATES: This rule is effective on September 30, 1996. Comments must be
received on or before August 5, 1996. The incorporation by reference of
certain publications listed in the regulation are effective as of
September 30, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine
Safety Council (G-LRA/3406) (CGD 94-108), U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, or may
be delivered to room 3406 at the same address between 8 a.m. and 3
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is (202) 267-1477. Comments on collection-of-information
requirements must be mailed also to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW, Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.
The Executive Secretary maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments will become part of this docket and will be
available for inspection or copying at room 3406, U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
A copy of the material listed in ``Incorporation by Reference'' of
this rule is available for inspection at room 1300, U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Gerald P. Miante, Project Manager, Office of Design and Engineering
Standards (G-MSE), (202) 267-2206.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments,
particularly on the changes made since the notice of proposed
rulemaking of February 2, 1996, was published. It is not necessary to
resubmit comments submitted under that notice.
Persons submitting comments should include their names and
addresses, identify this rulemaking (CGD 94-108) and the specific
section of this rule to which each comment applies, and give the reason
for each comment. Please submit two copies of all comments and
attachments in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. Persons wanting
acknowledgement of receipt of comments should enclose stamped, self-
addressed postcards or envelopes.
The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the
comment period. It may change this rule in view of the comments.
The Coast Guard plans no additional public meetings. Persons may
request a public meeting by writing to the Marine Safety Council at the
address under ADDRESSES. The request should include the reasons why a
public meeting would be beneficial. If it determines that the
opportunity for oral presentations will aid this rulemaking, the Coast
Guard will hold a public meeting at a time and place announced by a
later notice in the Federal Register.
Regulatory History
On February 2, 1996, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ``Electrical Engineering Requirements for
Merchant Vessels'' in the Federal Register (61 FR 4132). Correction
notices were published on February 23, 1996 (61 FR 7050), and March 5,
1996 (61 FR 8539). The Coast Guard received 45 letters commenting on
the proposal. As a result of requests from a national trade
association, a notice was published on February 26, 1996 (61 FR 7090),
extending the comment period from March 18, 1996, to April 2, 1996, and
announcing a public meeting on March 25, 1996. Over 20 persons attended
the meeting and 9 commented on the NPRM. A recording and summary of the
meeting are in the rulemaking docket.
Purpose
Under the authorities cited in the ``Authority'' section for each
part amended, the Coast Guard is amending its electrical engineering
and equipment regulations for certain Coast Guard-inspected vessels in
46 CFR chapter I, subchapters I-A, J, and Q to accomplish the
following:
(1) To reduce the regulatory burden on the marine industry by
eliminating obsolete and unnecessary regulations and by clarifying the
remaining ones. This objective is consistent with the President's
Regulatory Reinvention Initiative and the Coast Guard's regulatory
reform program.
(2) To replace, where appropriate, requirements that are
prescriptive in nature with performance-based requirements that
incorporate national and international standards and allow increased
flexibility for small businesses.
(3) To eliminate requirements that create an unwarranted
differential between domestic rules and international standards. This
rulemaking harmonizes, where possible, the electrical regulations with
amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at
Sea, 1974, (SOLAS 74) since the electrical regulations were last
revised in 1982.
(4) To address comments received from the marine industry and from
Coast Guard field and inspection offices.
This rulemaking is intended to serve the needs of industry while
maintaining a comparable level of safety.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
The following is a summary of the comments received, both by letter
and at the public meeting, and the changes made to the regulatory text
since the NPRM was published. The items are grouped first by those that
address a general issue, then by those that relate to a specific
provision in the text.
I. General Comments
(1) A number of comments suggested changes that require further
consideration by the Coast Guard. For example, several comments
recommended that certain other standards be referenced in the
regulations as replacements for, or options to, those cited in the
NPRM. A few comments suggested changes to sections not addressed in the
NPRM. The recommended standards for incorporation by reference will be
considered for inclusion in the final rule
[[Page 28261]]
of this rulemaking. These comments are noted in this section of the
preamble as subject to further consideration.
(2) A number of comments applauded the Coast Guard's effort to
streamline its electrical regulations and incorporate industry
standards, both domestic and international.
Consistent with the President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative,
the Coast Guard is taking this approach in all its rulemaking projects.
(3) One comment requested an additional 60 days for the comment
period and at least four public meetings.
In response, the Coast Guard extended the comment period an
additional 15 days and held a public meeting on March 25, 1996. Under
this interim rule, the comment period is reopened for an additional 45
days.
(4) One comment expressed concern that proposed mobile offshore
drilling unit (MODU) regulations were being presented in a piecemeal
fashion throughout subchapter J. It suggested that these amendments be
added to the Coast Guard's MODU regulations and that subchapter I-A be
revised to incorporate the 1989 International Maritime Organization
(IMO) MODU Code.
The Coast Guard has a long-range plan to extensively revise its
MODU regulations in 46 CFR chapter I, subchapter I-A. At that time,
both the IMO MODU Code and the American Bureau of Shipping Rules for
Building and Classing Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (ABS MODU Rules)
will be considered.
(5) One comment expressed concern that the Coast Guard proposed to
apply the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974
(SOLAS 74) in a blanket fashion to all vessels including MODU's.
SOLAS 74 has not been applied to non-self-propelled MODU's under
this rulemaking.
(6) The terms ``wheelhouse'' and ``pilothouse'' have been replaced
throughout subchapter J with the term ``navigating bridge'' as used in
SOLAS 74.
(7) One comment recommended that the incorporation by reference
list include other equivalent international standards.
The Coast Guard has a long-range plan to broaden the use of
acceptable standards. Until those standards are incorporated into the
regulations, any vessel owner or operator who desires to employ a
fitting, material, apparatus, equipment, or arrangement other than that
required by this subchapter may submit a request using the equivalency
provision in Sec. 110.20-1.
(8) One comment recommended that all regulations in excess of
international standards be removed and that the regulations incorporate
rules promulgated by ABS or other recognized classification societies.
The Coast Guard is continuing to address the issue in the ABS-
generated U.S. supplement. Presently, ABS Rules are undergoing a major
revision and some provisions, even now, differ with those of other
International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) members.
The Coast Guard will consider revising those areas of its regulations
in the future.
II. Comments to Specific Sections
Sec. 108.170. (1) One comment indicated that this section is
duplicated in Sec. 111.105-33.
This rulemaking merely corrects a citation in the note to the
section. This section, as well as the remainder of subchapter I-A, is
under consideration for revision at a later date.
(2) One comment suggested a change in the wording of Note 1 to
align its terminology with subpart 111.105.
This change has been made accordingly.
Sec. 101.01-1. (1) Several comments suggested that paragraphs (a)
and (b) were confusing and should be revised or combined.
The paragraphs have been revised accordingly.
(2) One comment requested that the effective date be changed from
90 to 120 days to provide the additional time necessary to comply with
the new regulations.
The effective date has been set for September 30, 1996.
(3) One comment suggested that the term ``vessels'', as used in
proposed paragraph (b), be clarified to exclude fixed platforms.
This change was not considered necessary because nowhere in Coast
Guard regulations is the term ``fixed platform'' included in the
definition of ``vessel.''
(4) One comment suggested adding ``and its tributaries'' to the
definition of Great Lakes vessel.
The definition has been revised to align it with the definition of
``Great Lakes'' in the Coast Guard's Inland Navigation Rules,
Commandant Instruction M16672.2B (33 CFR chapter I, subchapter E).
Sec. 110.01-3. One comment stated that this section is confusing.
This section has been revised to discuss repairs and replacements,
alterations and modifications, and conversions in separate paragraphs.
Sec. 110.10-1. (1) Several comments noted that the Institute of
Electrical and Electronic Engineer (IEEE) is in the process of revising
its standards.
The Coast Guard will consider these revisions when approved by IEEE
and update this section accordingly.
(2) One comment noted that Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) 595
is not cited in Sec. 111.60-11(c).
The reference to that section has been deleted.
(3) One comment noted that UL 50 is listed as being cited in
Sec. 111.81-13(a) but this section is removed.
UL 50 is now cited in Sec. 111.81-1.
(4) One comment recommended that American Petroleum Institute (API)
Recommended Practices (RP's) be incorporated by reference.
API RP's are being considered for future rulemakings.
(5) Two comments stated that some of the standards incorporated by
reference in Secs. 110.10-1 and 161.002-1 may also be available in
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) versions.
Items approved by the Director of the Federal Register for
incorporation by reference are required to be identified by the
information on the cover of the document.
(6) Several comments noted that MIL-C-24643 and MIL-C-24640 should
read MIL-C-24643A and MIL-C-24640A.
These have been changed accordingly.
(7) Several comments noted that ANSI/UL 1581 (VW-1) should read
ANSI/UL 1581.
This title and the three sections referenced have been amended
accordingly.
(8) Several comments indicated that the Canadian Standards
Association (CSA) standard CSA-C 22.2 No. 245/UL 1309, Marine Shipboard
Cable, should be included.
This standard is new and still under consideration by the Coast
Guard.
(9) Several comments requested that UL 1569, Metal-Clad Cables,
should be included.
The standard has been added as requested. See the discussion of
Sec. 111.60-23 in this preamble.
(10) One comment noted that American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) D 789, Standard Specification for Nylon Injection and
Extrusion Materials (PA), should be ANSI/ASTM D 1897.
The correct replacement for ASTM D 789 is ASTM D 4066-94B. The
reference has been changed accordingly.
(11) Many comments suggested that the references not cite the date
of the document as they are periodically revised.
As indicated in Sec. 110.10-1(a), only the edition listed in
Sec. 110.10-1(b) can be enforced. The Coast Guard will consider
[[Page 28262]]
future revisions but must provide public notice for comment before
adopting them.
(12) One comment questioned whether the vessel must comply with the
specific edition of a standard incorporated or could it comply with a
later edition.
When requested, provisions in later editions may be used if they
are accepted by the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center (MSC),
under subpart 110.20 or Sec. 161.002-17, as providing an equivalent
level of safety.
(13) Several comments suggested incorporating ABS MODU Rules into
the following sections: Secs. 111.12-1(a), 111.12-3, 111.12-5, 111.12-
7, 111.33-11, 111.35-1, and 111.70-1(a).
The ABS MODU Rules have been included as suggested.
(14) One comment noted that International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC) Publication 533 was not mentioned in the referred
section.
The publication is now referenced in new Sec. 113.05-7 addressing
environmental testing.
(15) One comment questioned whether some of the material
incorporated is the latest available edition or is readily available in
the ANSI on-line catalog.
The editions incorporated are the latest supplied to the Coast
Guard by the organization which originated the standard.
Sec. 110.15-1. (1) One comment recommended that the ABS definition
of ``nonsparking fan'' is more complete and should be used.
The definition has been changed accordingly.
(2) Several comments pointed out inconsistencies in the definitions
of ``waterproof'' and ``watertight'' and the associated National
Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) and IEC ingress protection
(IP) ratings.
The definitions and the text have been corrected accordingly.
(3) One comment suggested that the definition of ``qualified
person'' indicate that the person be qualified in electrical
procedures.
This change has been made accordingly.
(4) One comment stated that the reference to Sec. 1.01 in the
definition of ``Commandant'' is unnecessary and adds no value.
The reference has been deleted.
(5) One comment suggested deleting the definition of ``emergency
squad'' since it no longer appeared in revised Sec. 113.30-5(d).
``Emergency squad'' has been reinserted in Sec. 113.30-5(d) for
clarity.
(6) The definition of the term ``independent laboratory'' has been
added to this section. Minor conforming amendments have been made
throughout subchapter J to accommodate this definition and subpart
110.35 has been removed.
Sec. 110.20-1. This section has been aligned with equivalency
provisions in other recent Coast Guard rulemakings.
Sec. 110.25-1. (1) Several comments stated that the requirement in
proposed new paragraph (c)(12) for the owner to submit lists of
equipment and components used in hazardous locations does little to
improve safety because components are inspected during installation by
the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI). Additionally, the
comments point out most of the requirements are duplicated in paragraph
(i).
This requirement is retained because it is vital to the plan review
process, which identifies suitability of each component and the system
before installation. All of the required elements of the plan submittal
have been included in revised paragraph (i) and proposed paragraph
(c)(12) has been removed.
(2) One comment recommended that the Coast Guard address, in the
note to paragraph (n), the manufacturer's self-certification to a list
standard when that standard requires third-party certification.
A sentence has been added as recommended.
(3) One comment pointed out that independent laboratories
referenced must be accepted for testing and listing or certification.
Paragraph (j) has been changed accordingly.
Sec. 110.25-3. One comment observed that, in the note to paragraph
(c), the Coast Guard Technical Office no longer exists.
The Technical Office has been replaced by the Marine Safety Center.
The note has been revised accordingly.
Sec. 110.30-1. One comment stated that the CFR parts listed in this
section were out of date.
The section has been amended to avoid specifying individual parts.
Sec. 110.30-5. One comment recommended that this section be removed
because information regarding the scope of inspection is in the
pertinent parts under which vessels are certificated.
This section is necessary because the pertinent parts refer to
subchapter J and because this section addresses inspection of
electrical equipment specifically.
Sec. 110.30-7. One comment suggested that notice to the OCMI is
already required in the subchapter under which a vessel is certificated
and that this section should be removed.
Not all of these subchapters provide for this notice. Therefore,
this section is retained.
Subpart 110.35. (1) This subpart has been removed because
``independent laboratory'' is now defined in Sec. 110.15-1,
Definitions.
(2) One comment requested that the Coast Guard use Occupational
Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's) Nationally Recognized Test
Laboratory program.
The Coast Guard's program under part 159, subpart 159.010, focuses
on performance in the marine environment, rather than in the general
workplace, as does the OSHA program. Any OSHA laboratory capable of
testing to marine product performance and environment may apply for
inclusion in the Coast Guard's program.
Sec. 111.01-1. One comment suggested the addition of a general
requirement that system integrity be maintained.
A new paragraph (c) has been added accordingly.
Sec. 111.01-5. Several comments recommended that the qualifier in
paragraph (d) for electric cable be removed.
This section has been revised to indicate that protection from
bilge water is required for all of the equipment listed in paragraphs
(a) through (d), if located in or around the bilge area.
Sec. 111.01-7. One comment recommended adding the words ``and
spacing'' to the title of this section because spacing is addressed in
paragraph (b).
The change was made accordingly.
Sec. 111.01-9. (1) One comment requested that the words ``on deck''
be removed from paragraph (b) because the hazard could exist in other
locations on the vessel.
In line with this recommendation, paragraphs (a) and (b) were
revised to align the minimum degree of protection required with the
hazard rather than the specific location.
(2) One comment requested that a NEMA Type 1 enclosure be the
minimum requirement in paragraphs (a), (c), and (d).
Paragraph (d) has been revised to reflect the suggestion. However,
the minimum requirements for the equipment in paragraphs (a) and (c)
have been adjusted to provide a slightly higher degree of protection
consistent with the hazards and vital functions performed. The
definitions for those locations requiring, and those locations not
requiring, exceptional degrees of protection have been slightly revised
accordingly.
[[Page 28263]]
(3) One comment suggested modifying the second sentence of
paragraph (a) to include the phrase ``pressure-directed liquids''.
This change was made in paragraph (b) because of the amendments to
paragraphs (a) and (b) discussed above.
(4) One comment stated that personal computers and similar
equipment should be allowed to be used as control consoles when not
subject to exposure from liquids.
Personal computers are not prohibited under this section if they
meet the stated degrees of protection.
Sec. 111.01-15. (1) One comment recommended a major revision of
this section, including removing paragraphs (b) and (d), because the
preamble to the NPRM failed to identify the international requirement
upon which the proposal was based or to give any other justification.
The design parameters for this section were based upon table 4 of
IEC Publication 92-101, Electrical Installations in Ships--Part 101:
Definitions and General Requirements. The paragraphs are retained.
(2) One comment suggested minor editorial changes in paragraph (e).
The recommendations to clarify paragraph (e) have been adopted.
Sec. 111.01-17. One comment stated that the deletion of standard
voltages may introduce the risk of proliferation of non-marine
arrangements.
This section replaces prescriptive regulation with performance
criteria. The Coast Guard will consider refering to industry standard
voltages and frequencies when IEEE Std 45 is revised.
Secs. 111.01-19, 111.01-21, and 111.01-23. (1) Several comments
stated that some requirements in these sections were in excess of ABS
Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels (ABS Rules), and
suggested the Coast Guard adopt ABS Rules for environmental testing.
Section 111.01-19 is retained because it applies to all electrical
equipment. Sections 111.01-21 and 111.01-23, although consistent with
IEC Publication 92-101, have been removed because they apply to control
equipment similar to that covered by the ABS Rules. Environmental
testing requirements for communication, alarm, control, and monitoring
equipment have now been addressed in new Sec. 113.05-7 incorporating
table 4/11.1 of ABS Rules.
(2) One comment suggested that Lloyd's Register Type Approval
System--Test Specification Number 1 be incorporated for all electrical
control equipment.
The options of this test specification and ABS Rules table 4/11.1
now appear in Sec. 113.05-7.
(3) One comment suggested that inclination criteria be limited to
conventional hulled or self-propelled vessels and not column stabilized
units, such as MODU's and tension leg platforms (TLP's).
The requirement is retained pending further consideration by the
Coast Guard.
(4) One comment noted that in Sec. 111.01-21 ``all electrical
control equipment'' is too broad. Vibration criteria should be limited
to vital propulsion and vessel control systems on self-propelled
vessels.
In addition to the discussion of the first comment to these
sections, the requirements apply to the control and monitoring
equipment referenced in ABS Rules 4/11 and communication and alarm
systems under part 113 of this chapter.
Sec. 111.05-07. Several comments suggested that IEC 92-352 be
removed because it is obscure, misleading, and unnecessary and that it
be replaced with a domestic standard.
IEC Publication 92-352 has been replaced with IEC 92-3 and IEEE Std
45 is added as an option.
Sec. 111.05-9. One comment suggested incorporating the American
Boat and Yacht Council Standard E-2 for lightning ground conductors.
The Coast Guard is reviewing this standard for possible
incorporation by reference.
Sec. 111.05-23. Two comments indicated that the requirement in
paragraph (d) was overly prescriptive and costly, with limited benefit.
One suggested alternative locations.
Paragraph (d) has been amended accordingly.
Sec. 111.05-27. One comment suggested deleting the provision to
``momentarily remove the indicating device from the reference ground''
because monitoring technology exists which obviates the need.
The requirement is retained because not all ground detection
systems employ such state-of-the-art design.
Sec. 111.05-33. (1) Many comments suggested that the Coast Guard
retain its current regulations for equipment grounding conductor size
according to the National Electrical Code (the NEC).
Paragraph (a) has been revised as suggested.
(2) Many comments discussed the proposal to require that equipment
grounding conductors be insulated.
Paragraph (b) has been revised to reference the NEC article 310-
12(b) for conductor covering and identification.
(3) Many comments agreed with the proposal of prohibiting cable
armor from being used as the grounding conductor and suggested adding
metallic sheath to the regulation.
Paragraph (c) has been revised as suggested and moved to a more
appropriate location in Sec. 111.60-5(d).
(4) One comment suggested adding a reference to IEC requirements
for grounding conductors, noting that the 1996 revision of ABS Rules
will be incorporating the IEC criteria.
The IEC criteria is presently under review pending ABS
incorporation.
Sec. 111.10-7. One comment stated that paragraph (b) duplicates the
provisions of Sec. 112.05-5.
This paragraph is intended to introduce general dead ship power
requirements into subpart 111.10, Power Supply. Section 112.05-5
contains more detailed requirements.
Sec. 111.10-9. One comment stated that the sizing and transformer
redundancy requirements are overly prescriptive for other than self-
propelled vessels.
The requirements are for ship's service supply loads listed in
Sec. 111.10-4(b). Propulsion accounts for only a portion of the loads.
The transformer requirements are retained for non-self-propelled
vessels because of safety and habitability considerations.
111.12-1. (1) One comment pointed out that the overspeed trip
requirement in paragraph (b) may not be entirely practicable because
some manufacturers recommend different settings, such as 18 percent.
The requirement is consistent with ABS Rules and is retained. If a
manufacturer designs and recommends a trip value in excess of this
requirement, the manufacturer may apply for equivalency under part 110,
subpart 110.20.
(2) One comment pointed out that pressure-lubricated generator
bearings mentioned in paragraph (c) are rare. The comment also noted
that neither Coast Guard regulations nor ABS Rules provide for
automatic shutdown of a diesel generator's prime mover upon failure of
that engine's pressure lubrication system.
The revision to paragraph (c) in the NPRM was to expand the present
provision to consider proliferation of shaft driven generators. The
Coast Guard is reviewing its requirements for generator prime movers
and will address shutdown upon loss of lube oil in another rulemaking.
Sec. 111.12-11. (1) Several comments recommended replacing the
words ``inverse time,'' in paragraph (c)(1), with the word ``longtime''
to be consistent
[[Page 28264]]
with the proposed change to paragraph (d).
Paragraph (c)(1) has been amended as suggested.
(2) One comment suggested a complete revision of paragraph (g) to
align terminology with SOLAS 74 and allow deviations on a case-by-case
basis.
The requirements are considered comparable. Case-by-case
equivalences are already provided for under part 110, subpart 110.20.
Sec. 111.15-2. One comment discussed the change in the angle of
inclination of a battery cell from the existing 30 degrees to the
proposed 40 degrees, stating that one specific angle is not appropriate
for all vessel types in determining suitability for marine use.
The figure of 40 degrees static inclination is from the
international standards of IEC Publications 92-101 and 92-305 and is
applicable to all vessels. However, the Coast Guard recognizes that a
40 degree static inclination may be beyond the reasonable or practical
limits for certain vessels to which these regulation apply. Where
installations are made on specific vessels that cannot attain or
sustain a 40 degree static inclination, a lesser value may be accepted
under the equivalency provisions in subpart 110.20.
Sec. 111.15-5. (1) One comment suggested the prescriptive language
in paragraph (d), be replaced with performance standards relative to
battery tray clearance.
Paragraph (d) has been amended as suggested.
(2) One comment discussed the need to differentiate between
cranking and other types of batteries in paragraph (e).
Paragraph (e) has been revised as suggested.
Sec. 111.15-20. One comment suggested a minor wording order change
in paragraph (c) for clarity.
Paragraph (c) has been revised as suggested.
Sec. 111.15-30. One comment suggested that portable battery
chargers incorporating an autotransformer may impose an intentional
ground on a vessel's power supply system and, therefore, should not be
used.
A sentence was added prohibiting the use of chargers incorporating
grounded autotransformers.
111.30-1. One comment recommended incorporating IEC standards on
switchboards.
The incorporation has been made accordingly.
Sec. 111.30-5. (1) One comment observed that the wire sizes
mentioned in the reference of paragraph (a) differed from those cited
in Sec. 111.30-19(b)(3).
Section 111.30-19(b)(3) has been revised accordingly.
(2) One comment pointed out that the requirement in paragraph (b)
repeats the requirement in Sec. 111.01-9.
Paragraph (b) is retained because it additionally mentions deck-to-
overhead construction.
(3) One comment noted that low and medium voltage is defined
differently in the IEEE and IEC standards.
Paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) have been revised to reflect this
difference.
Sec. 111.30-19. (1) One comment stated that section 17.11 of IEEE
Std 45, as referred to in paragraph (a)(1), itself refers to the NEC
article 384-26 (1981). The comment suggested that, where an edition of
a standard is referred to in a document incorporated by reference, the
latest edition of that standard applies.
Until IEEE Std 45 adopts a newer edition of the 1981 NEC and the
Coast Guard incorporates the new IEEE Std 45, the 1981 edition of the
NEC applies in this instance.
(2) One comment pointed out that there are no specific acceptance
criteria in subchapter J for aluminum bus bars.
Guidelines for aluminum bus bar installations are contained in
Coast Guard Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 2-79 and
are considered to provide adequate guidance on aluminum bus bars until
the new revision of IEEE Std 45 is published and incorporated by
reference.
Sec. 111.30-24. One comment requested that the exclusion for a non-
self-propelled MODU be expanded to include flotating Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) facilities.
This section has been revised to extend the exclusion to a non-
self-propelled floating Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) facility.
Sec. 111.30-29. (1) One comment pointed out that proposed paragraph
(i) was merely a repetition of the requirement in Sec. 112.05-5(h).
Paragraph (i) has been removed accordingly.
(2) One comment suggested that the section would appear better
organized if proposed paragraphs (g) and (h) were inserted after
existing paragraph (a).
The section has been revised accordingly.
Sec. 111.30-31. One comment recommended that Sec. 111.30-31 be
retained because, even though the current ABS Rules do not include
switchboard testing, the new 1996 ABS Rules will.
The Coast Guard will consider reinstating the requirement when ABS
issues its new rules.
Sec. 111.40-5. One comment recommended that this section be removed
because it is redundant and is only a cross-reference to the
requirements of Secs. 111.01-9.
This section has been retained to address the noncombustible
requirement and to cross-reference the accessibility and degree-of-
protection requirements in Secs. 111.01-7 and 111.01-9.
Sec. 111.40-7. One comment suggested rewriting this section for
ease of comprehension.
This section has been rewritten as suggested, without substantive
change.
Sec. 111.50-3. (1) Several comments noted that the word ``not'' was
inadvertently omitted from paragraph (c).
The paragraph has been revised accordingly.
(2) One comment suggested adding the clarifying phrase ``standard
fuse or circuit breaker'' after the words ``next larger'' in paragraph
(c).
This paragraph has been revised accordingly.
(3) One comment suggested revising the last sentence of paragraph
(c) to clarify the intent of the requirement.
Paragraph (c) has been revised accordingly.
Sec. 111.52-3. One comment pointed out that, although this section
was not addressed in the NPRM, it merely repeats criteria given in IEEE
Std 45.
The Coast Guard will consider revising this section when the new
IEEE Std 45 is published.
Sec. 111.52-5. One comment suggested deleting the word ``Detailed''
from the introductory text because the following paragraphs (a) through
(d) defined the level of detail.
The word ``Detailed'' has been removed as suggested.
Sec. 111.53-1. One comment suggested replacing ``Sec. 110.35-1'' in
paragraph (a)(3) with ``part 159'' because Sec. 110.35-1 merely cites
part 159 of this chapter.
``Independent laboratory'', as now defined in Sec. 110.15-1,
references part 159 and subpart 110.35 has been removed.
Sec. 111.54-1. One comment suggested the addition of ``one of the
following:'' to the end of the introductory text of paragraph (c)(1) so
that only one of the stated standards need be complied with.
Paragraph (c)(1) already provides for this.
Subpart 111.60. (1) Several comments pointed out that MIL-C-915 is
an obsolete standard and should be removed.
The standard has been removed.
(2) Several comments indicated that MIL-C-24640 and 24643 are now
in modification A status.
The modification A edition of both standards has been referenced.
(3) Many comments pointed out that ``VW-1'' is a test that resides
in ANSI/UL 1581.
[[Page 28265]]
The standard is now cited as ``ANSI/UL 1581 test VW-1.''
(4) Several comments suggested that Coast Guard regulations be
harmonized with the NEC along with ANSI and otherwise recognized
national standards.
One of the primary elements of this and other current Coast Guard
rulemakings is the incorporation of both international and domestic
recognized industry standards where appropriate. Article 90-2(b)(1) of
the NEC states that the NEC does not cover installations in ships. In
many cases, however, certain specific recommendations of the NEC are
considered appropriate for inclusion into the regulations.
Sec. 111.60-1. (1) Several comments questioned whether the Coast
Guard will accept cables equivalent to those stated in this section.
Equivalents may be accepted under Sec. 110.20-1.
(2) Many comments requested that the 75 deg.C requirement in
paragraph (c)(6) be changed to 90 deg.C, as allowed in USA/Canadian
binational shipboard cable standard UL 1309/CSA C22.2 No. 245.
The requirement for 75 deg. is retained in accordance with IEEE Std
45 and classification society rules. UL 1309/CSA C22.2 No. 245 is not
recognized by either the Coast Guard or the Ship Inspection
Directorate, Transport Canada.
(3) Several comments noted that International Association of
Drilling Contractors (IADC) guidelines IADC-DCCS-1/1991 describes a
special-purpose cable and, therefore, this standard should be referred
to in the industrial systems subpart. One requested the removal of the
standard altogether.
The standard is referred to in Sec. 111.60-1 because both
Sec. 111.60-1 and the standard concern cable construction details.
(4) Several comments requested that the Coast Guard include
acceptance of IEC 92-350 cable.
This type of cable is not included because IEC 92-350 is not now a
reaffirmed publication. In addition, as a result of tests conducted for
the Coast Guard, this cable failed to meet all of the performance
criteria in IEEE Std 45.
(5) One comment pointed out that IEC 92-3 does not require any
markings and suggested that this section include a marking or labeling
requirement to avoid confusion and promote consistency.
Paragraph (d) has been revised to include a marking requirement.
(6) Several comments suggested that the only reliable way to ensure
that cable meets the referenced specifications would be to include
wording requiring independent laboratory compliances testing for these
products.
Third party testing of marine shipboard cable is being considered
for inclusion into the 1996 revision IEEE Std 45 which will be
incorporated by reference into the CFR when the standard is published
by the IEEE.
Sec. 111.60-2. One comment pointed out that the 1983 IEEE Std 45
neither requires nor modifies IEEE Std 1202. Additionally, it suggests
the inclusion of Canadian Standards Association (CSA) FT-4.
This section has been revised to remove the modification language.
CSA FT-4 is under review for consideration.
Sec. 111.60-3. Several comments suggested the need to address
cables exposed to vibration, festooning, and repeated flexing.
Paragraph (d), which references cables for special applications in
IEEE Std 45 section 19.6.5, has been added to this section.
Sec. 111.60-4. One comment pointed out that 2.08 mm\2\ does not
correlate to #14 AWG.
The metric equivalent has been revised in accordance with IEEE Std
45 table A6.
Sec. 111.60-6. One comment suggested several standards to be
referenced relative to fiber optic cable and its fire load.
This concern is adequately addressed in paragraph (b) which refers
to Sec. 111.60-2 concerning specialty cable.
Sec. 111.60-13. Several comments requested reinserting UL 62 and
adding article 400 of the NEC as references in paragraph (a).
Paragraph (a) has been revised accordingly.
Sec. 111.60-17. Several comments recommended that the thread-
cutting type of connector is likely to sever strands of stranded-copper
conductors and, therefore, should not be allowed. Several other
comments recommended not allowing the use of the twist-on type of
connectors.
If properly installed and secured, the twist-on type of connector,
used in an enclosure, is suitable for joining relatively small loads to
the supply cable. The reference to thread-cutting type of connectors
has been removed.
Sec. 111.60-19. Several comments suggested prohibiting cable
splices in all Class I, Division 1, locations.
Splices are prohibited in all hazardous locations, except that
splices in intrinsically safe systems are allowed under paragraph (a).
Sec. 111.60-23. Many comments were received either requesting a
more liberal policy on the use of metal-clad (MC) cable on vessels or
recommending its complete prohibition as being totally unsuitable for
shipboard and MODU installations. This extensive range of comments
necessitated a complete review and revision of the MC cable section. In
the process of revising this section, the Coast Guard reviewed each
comment and tried to balance the conflicting views to provide a
solution that would allow MC cable to be used safely.
Based upon on-site observations, the Coast Guard determined that
limited use of MC cable may be allowed. New Sec. 111.60-23 is a
restatement of the policy developed by the Coast Guard since January
1991.
Sec. 111.70-1. (1) Several comments suggested deleting ``-94''
after ``ABS Rules, Part 4/5.87'' in paragraph (a).
This typographical error has been corrected and the word ``Part''
has been replaced with the correct word ``sections''.
(2) One comment recommended deleting the reference to subpart
111.35 in paragraph (a)(2) and citing ABS Rules directly.
The reference remains as proposed to avoid the more lengthy cross-
reference to ABS Rules each time an electrical propulsion installation
is mentioned throughout the subchapter.
(3) One comment recommended that ABS Rule 4/5.115.6 be included in
paragraph (a) due to the NPRM's deleting the NEC article 430.
Paragraph (a) has been revised accordingly with an additional
cross-reference to ABS MODU Rules.
Sec. 111.70-3. (1) Several comments noted that the incorrect NEMA
standard was cited in paragraph (a).
The correct standard is now cited.
(2) One comment suggested that enclosures in a hazardous location
must meet subpart 111.105 in addition to the other stated standards.
Paragraph (a) has been revised accordingly.
(3) One comment suggested that schematics and wiring diagrams need
only be available on the vessel and not necessarily on the door of each
controller.
The requirement is retained for safety reasons. This information
must be immediately available in emergency situations.
(4) One comment suggested replacing ``and'' with ``or'' and
deleting (v) and (vii) in paragraph (d)(1).
The comment provided no reason for these changes. Therefore, the
paragraph remains unchanged.
Sec. 111.75-16. One comment requested replacing the prescriptive
reference to
[[Page 28266]]
``floodlights'' with the more performance-oriented term ``lighting''.
The Coast Guard agrees and has amended this section accordingly.
Sec. 111.75-17. (1) One comment started that the requirement for
flexible cables and receptacles is unnecessarily restrictive and
suggested that permanent installations be addressed in paragraphs
(e)(e) and (e)(4).
The paragraphs has been revised accordingly.
(2) One comment recommended including alternative wording in the
labeling requirement in paragraph (d)(3)(1) to allow for the registered
certification mark instead of the name of the independent laboratory
which tested the figure.
Paragraph (d)(3)(1) has been revised accordingly.
(3) One comment suggested that, in paragraph (d)(3)(i),
``independent laboratory, accepted by the Commandant'' be replaced by
``accepted independent laboratory'' and that ``UL 1104'' be replaced by
``this standard''.
The directions properly express the intent of the requirement and
the wording remains as published in the NPRM.
(4) One comment stated that navigation lights should also meet
international standards (COLREGS).
The reference in paragraph (d)(1) to ``applicable navigation
rules'' includes COLREGS as well as Inland Navigation Rules, as
applicable.
(5) One comment suggested that specific requirements for battery-
operated navigation lights and additional labeling information be
included in paragraph (d).
Paragraphs (d)(3)(iv), (v), and (vi) were added to provide
essential information needed by marine inspectors to determine the
fixture's suitability for vessel type and location.
(6) One comment suggested the inclusion of specific photometric
requirements for battery powered navigation lights.
This concern is currently under consideration by the Navigation
Safety Advisory Committee (NAVSAC) and the Coast Guard is awaiting
NAVSAC's recommendations before further rulemaking on this issue.
Sec. 111.75-20. (1) Several comments requested clarification of the
word ``certified'' in paragraph (a) and the words ``self-certified''
and ``listing is not required'' in paragraph (e).
These words have been replaced with the requirement that the
lighting fixtures meet the stated standards.
(2) One comment objected to the incorporation of the UL standards
in the proposal on the grounds that they are prescriptive and non-
consensus-based.
The Coast Guard has determined that, in this, instance, the UL
standards referenced adequately address the equipment.
(3) One questioned the proposed environmental testing requirements
for luminaries (lighting fixtures).
The comment offered no explanation. Coast Guard accepts either
standard as an option.
(4) On May 1, 1996, UL announced the publication of the Marine
Supplements to the Standard for Fluorescent Lighting Fixtures, UL 1570;
the Standard for Incandescent Lighting Fixtures, UL 1571; and the
Standard for High Intensity Discharge Lighting Fixtures, UL 1572. The
requirements in these supplements are effective May 3, 1999, and will
replace the requirements of UL 595. UL 595 will be withdrawn at that
time. Between May 1, 1996, and May 3, 1999, UL is allowing compliance
testing of fixtures to either the new series of standards or UL 595.
The Coast Guard accepts either regimen.
Sec. 111.77-3. One comment suggested removing the word
``internationally'' because both international and domestic standards
are appropriate.
This section has been amended by removing ``internationally'' and
by specifying UL safety and construction standards. The use of other
domestic and international standards may be requested under the
equivalency provision in Sec. 110.20-1.
Sec. 111.79-1. (1) One comment suggested deleting the last sentence
of paragraph (d), because the requirement is redundant, and moving the
requirement of Sec. 111.79-7 to a more appropriate location in new
paragraph (e) of Sec. 111.79-1.
The changes have been made accordingly.
(2) One comment indicated that the change in the spacing of
receptacles in paragraph (b) went beyond recognized classification
society and international standards.
The Coast Guard agrees and has amended the section accordingly.
Sec. 111.79-5. One comment expressed concern that adding the words
``suitable for the environment'' to Sec. 111.79-1(d) and removing
Sec. 111.79-5 would allow misinterpretation and create a safety
problem.
Although ``suitable for the environment'' should provide sufficient
guidance, paragraph (d) has been revised to include a specific cross-
reference to Sec. 111.01-9, Degrees of protection.
Sec. 111.81-1. (1) Several comments suggested replacing ``section
370'' with ``article 370'', in paragraph (d), to be consistent with the
terminology used in the document referred to (the NEC).
The recommended change has been made in this and other locations in
the rulemaking.
(2) Several comments noted that the requirements in Secs. 111.81-7
and 111.81-9 should be consolidated in Sec. 111.8-1.
This change has been made and Secs. 111.81-7 and 111.81-9 have been
consolidated into Sec. 111.81-1.
Sec. 111.85-1. One comment recommended the removal of proposed
paragraph (b) because this equipment could fail and create an arc
without necessarily reaching the ignition temperature of the oil or
vapor.
The paragraph has been removed.
Sec. 111.87-3. Several comments pointed out that third-party
certification may place an undue hardship on heater manufacturers.
Paragraph (a) has been revised to remove the proposed third-party
testing requirement. Also, the words ``UL safety and construction
standards'' have been added.
Sec. 111.95-1. One comment stated that the list of provisions
paragraph (b) is incomplete.
Paragraph (b) has been amended to avoid specifying individual
provisions.
Sec. 111.99-5. One comment stated that there are no requirements to
install a holding and release system on fire doors and that the holding
force and power interruption requirements in paragraph (e), for systems
which are installed, exceed any SOLAS 74 requirement.
The 1992 Fire Safety Amendments to SOLAS 74 address fire door
release systems in regulation II-2/30.4.3. This subpart has been
revised to cross-reference the SOLAS 74 regulation.
Sec. 111.105-5. (1) Several comments questioned if the intend of
this section was to prohibit the use of both NEC and IEC approved
equipment in the same space.
The intent of this section is to ensure that proper and safe
equipment is used in hazardous locations. This section has been amended
to allow safe combinations of both types.
(2) Several comments pointed out the need for the word ``location''
after the word ``hazardous'' in the second sentence.
The sentence has been revised accordingly.
(3) One comment recommended the inclusion of API RP 505 as a
criterion for system integrity.
The standard is currently under consideration for incorporation.
(4) One comment requested clarification of this section's effect on
the application of the NEC and IEC
[[Page 28267]]
methods of classification in any one hazardous location and between
similar areas aboard the same vessel.
Any given location is subject to more than one classification. For
example, a specific cargo oil tank may be classified as a Class I,
Division 1, location under the NEC and a Zone 0 location under the IEC
system. Electrical equipment approved for Class I, Division 1
(intrinsically safe) or approved for Zone 0 (Ia) may be used.
Sec. 111.105-9. Several comments considered this section
unnecessary and redundant in light of Sec. 111.105-7.
Both Secs. 111.105-7 and 111.105-9 have been revised. Section
111.105-9 is considered necessary due to the term ``explosionproof''
having a different but related meaning in the IEC system.
Sec. 111.105-11. (1) Several comments pointed out that either
distance separation or a partition is an acceptable practice for
intrinsically safe circuits.
This section has been revised accordingly.
(2) One comment pointed out that paragraph (a) referred more
specifically to intrinsically safe ``components'' instead of
``systems''; that the reference to Sec. 111.105-7 was redundant; and
that other changes are needed to provide clarity.
The section has been revised accordingly.
Sec. 111.105-15. (1) One comment pointed out that the preamble to
the NPRM stated that electrical installations in hazardous locations
will continue to meet explosionproof/intrinsically safe requirements
but that other allowances are made in Sec. 111.105-15 for additional
locations.
The comment was correct in recognizing that methods other than
``explosionproof'' or ``intrinsically safe'' are included in the text.
The methods of protection listed in Sec. 111.105-15 are acceptable in
addition to ``explosionproof'' or ``intrinsically safe.''
(2) One comment suggested providing acceptable alternative
standards based on the NEC in paragraphs (b) and (d).
Paragraph (b) has been revised accordingly; other equivalent types
of protection are being evaluated.
(3) One comment recommended removing paragraph (b0 because its
requirements are redundant.
This section has been revised accordingly.
Sec. 111.105-17. (1) Several comments expressed concern about
deleting, from paragraph (a), the requirements for armored cable in
hazardous locations.
Paragraph (a) has been revised to clarify that armored marine
shipboard cable is required in Class I, Division 1 (Zone 0 and Zone 1)
hazardous locations.
(2) One comment pointed out that MI and SI type cables should be
deleted because they are generally obsolete and are used in only highly
specialized applications.
These type cables have been retained to allow an option for those
particular applications.
(3) One comment suggested that the Class and Zone designations in
paragraph (d) are incorrect.
Class II and Class III (Zone Z or 10, and Zone Y or 11) refer to
atmospheres containing dusts and flyings. Paragraph (d) has been
slightly revised to clarify.
Sec. 111.105-31. (1) Several comments pointed out that Appendix B
does not appear in IEEE Std 45-1983 and that IEC Publication 92-502
should be included as a reference for this section.
This section has been revised as suggested.
(2) Several comments requested the rationale of the requirements in
new paragraphs (1)(3) and (1)(4).
These requirements are consistent with ABS Rule 4/5.151.lb.
Sec. 111.105-32. One comment suggested that the word ``Commandant''
in paragraph (c) be changed to ``Commanding Officer, Marine Safety
Center''.
Paragraph (c) has been revised to provide for concept approval by
the Commandant (G-MSE) and plan approval by Commanding Officer, Marine
Safety Center.
Sec. 111.105-33. One comment recommended that a provision be added
to paragraph (f) that loss-of-ventilation alarms be powered
independently of the ventilator's power system consistent with the
independency concept for vessels under 46 CFR 62.30-5.
This change has been made to the MODU regulations in Sec. 108.185.
Sec. 111.105-35. One comment recommended adding corresponding IEC
Zone designations to the NEC locations specified in this section.
These additions have been made.
Sec. 111.105-39. Several comments suggested deleting the note to
this section because it does not relate to the subject of the section.
The note has been removed.
Sec. 111.105-40. One comment suggested a vertical distance limit be
added to paragraph (b) so that hazardous location classification is not
extended to an unlimited height.
The open deck of a roll-on/roll-off (RO/RO) vessel is not
classified. The paragraph has been revised to address closed cargo
spaces.
Secs. 111.105-43 and 111.105-45. One comment recommended adding
corresponding IEC Zone designations to the NEC locations specified in
this section.
These additions have been made.
Sec. 111.105-47. One comment suggested that this section should not
apply when the flashpoint of the flammable or combustible cargo is
60 deg.C or more.
This section has been removed and transferred to Sec. 111.105-
31(n).
Sec. 111.107-1. (1) One comment noted that IEEE Std 383 referred to
in paragraph (c)(2)(i) has been replaced with IEEE Std 1202.
This paragraph has been changed accordingly.
(2) One comment noted that paragraph (c) as proposed required
compliance with (c) (1), (2), and (3) instead of (c) (1) and (2) or
(c)(3).
Paragraph (c) has been revised as noted.
Sec. 112.05-1. One comment suggested removing ``only'' in paragraph
(a) and adding, after ``emergency'', ``and those additional loads that
may be authorized under paragraph (c) of this section.''
Paragraph (a) has been revised as suggested.
Sec. 112.05-5. Several comments requested clarification of the
words ``any other machinery'' in paragraph (d).
Paragraph (d) has been revised to clarify the words.
Sec. 112.15-1. One comment recommended that the cross-references in
the last sentence of paragraph (g) were informational only and,
therefore, unnecessary.
The last sentence has been removed.
Sec. 112.15-5. (1) One comment suggested that the list of parts in
paragraph (e) may not be complete.
Paragraph (e) has been revised as suggested.
(2) One comment suggested replacing ``a mobil offshore drilling
unit'' in paragraph (m) with ``an offshore unit.''
Paragraph (m) has been revised as suggested.
Sec. 112.50-1. One comment suggested that the 45-second delay in
paragraph (d) be aligned with proposed revision of NFPA Standard 301,
which would require a 10-second delay.
The 45-second delay is retained because this requirement is aligned
with SOLAS 74.
Sec. 112.50-3. One comment stated that paragraphs (f) and (g) have
been superseded by proposed paragraph (a).
Paragraphs (f) and (g) have been removed.
Sec. 112.50-5. One comment recommended that the starting battery
have a reserve starting capacity of at least three starts.
The proposal already provides for this, either by means of the
battery itself
[[Page 28268]]
or by means of the battery and a second source of starting energy.
Sec. 113.05-7. Several comments addressed the subject of
environmental testing of communication, alarm, control, and monitoring
equipment.
New Sec. 113.05-7, Environmental Testing, has been created in
response to these concerns.
Sec. 113.10-7. One comment recommended removing the specific
degrees of ingress protection referred to in this section due to their
excessive nature.
The NEMA and IEC IP ratings of the connection boxes are retained
because exceptional degrees of protection are required throughout part
113 since these systems are emergency in nature. However, the
``watertight'' requirements have been replaced with the less stringent
``waterproof'' requirements.
Sec. 113.10-9. One comment pointed out in paragraph (a) that, by
requiring the second source of power for the fire detection system to
be a battery, the Coast Guard is deviating from its present regulations
and SOLAS 74, which allow the second source to be either the emergency
source or a battery.
Paragraph (a) has been revised to keep the present options and to
define the source of power for the battery charger if used.
Sec. 113.25-6. One comment suggested that, in paragraph (d), the
Coast Guard cite the specific SOLAS 74 regulations for the power supply
for the general alarm system.
The section has been revised to refer to SOLAS 74, regulations II-
1/42, 11- 1/43, III/6, and III/50.
Sec. 113.25-9. One comment suggested harmonizing our general alarm
requirements in paragraphs (b) and (c) with NFPA 72 (National Fire
Alarm Code). Another comment suggested harmonizing the section with the
new IMO Lifesaving Appliances Code.
Paragraph (c) has been revised according to the second suggestion.
The sound level requirements have been moved from 113.25-9(c),
concerning location of general emergency alarm signals, to paragraph
(d) of Sec. 113.25-12, Alarm signals.
Sec. 113.25-10. One comment noted that the prohibition against
using red flashing or rotating beacons for purposes other than the
general alarm seems to be in conflict with the IMO ``Code on Alarms and
Indicators,'' which recommends red lights as supplemental visual alarms
for fire alarm and fire-extinguishing medium release.
Pending further consideration of the IMO Code, proposed paragraph
(c) has been removed.
Sec. 113.25-11. (1) One comment recommended removing specific
degrees of ingress protection in paragraph (a) because the degree
should be consistent with the location of the device.
The NEMA and IEC IP ratings of the contact makers are retained
because exceptional degrees of protection are required throughout part
113 since these systems are emergency in nature. However, the
``watertight'' requirements have been replaced with the less stringent
``waterproof'' requirements.
(2) One comment recommended revising the section to address SOLAS
74-compliant digital systems that do not incorporate contact makers.
Since the term ``contact maker'' refers to the primary initiating
device and not the resultant audible device, it follows that every
system, regardless of design, should employ some form of contact maker
as a manual means to initiate the alarm.
Sec. 113.25-12. One comment suggested replacing ``bells'' with the
more common term ``audible devices'' and, in the process, deleting
paragraph (b).
The term ``bells'' has been removed and replaced with the SOLAS 74
description ``general emergency alarm signal.'' Paragraph (b) has been
deleted as its requirements are now included in paragraph (a).
Sec. 113.30-1. One comment suggested not adding the words ``and
each self-propelled mobile offshore drilling unit'' since MODU's are
defined as vessels in Sec. 107.111.
This change has been made accordingly.
Sec. 113.30-3. One comment recommended that the section be revised
to address all communication means that are in compliance with SOLAS
74, regulations II-1/42, II-1/43, and III/6.4.
This section has been revised as suggested.
Sec. 113.30-5. Minor editorial changes were made to align this
section with the changes made to 113.30-3.
Sec. 113.30-20. One comment recommended that paragraph (b) be
revised to require that only systems that do not have other effective
means of station isolation during a fault have a cut-out switch on the
navigating bridge.
Paragraph (b) has been revised as suggested.
Sec. 113.30-25. One comment recommended that paragraph (i) be
revised to allow the option of cable routing through high fire-risk
spaces if the cable meets the requirements of IEC 331. The use of this
standard can lead to significant cost savings and more practical
installations.
Paragraph (i) has been revised accordingly.
Sec. 113.35-5. One comment stated that the audible alarm signal in
paragraph (e)(3) should not be able to be silenced but reduced in
volume.
This change has been accepted.
Sec. 113.35-19. One comment suggested redesignating this section as
Sec. 113.35-7 (which has been removed in this rule) because both
Sec. 113.35-19 and Sec. 113.35-5 concern electric engine order
telegraph systems.
Section 113.35-19 has been redesignated accordingly.
Sec. 113.40-10. One comment suggested that the requirement in
paragraph (a) seemed extreme and questioned whether the system must
have an entirely independent power source and whether it could be
physically located in the same console as other systems.
The proposed requirement that the power system be independent is
retained because it is the intent that the power for a rudder angle
indicator system be provided from a power supply circuit other than
power circuits used for the equipment in paragraph (a). Paragraph (a)
is revised to allow location in the same console.
Subpart 113.43. One comment suggested that the requirement for a
steering gear failure alarm be removed because it is excessive when
compared to international safety standards and suggested that improved
training could be initiated in place of this requirement to address the
watchstander's response to steering gear failures.
This requirement was established in direct response to a National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendation resulting from their
investigation of the SEA WITCH/ESSO BRUSSELS collision in New York
Harbor in 1974. Although improved crew training and related human
factor consideration may help, the Coast Guard determined that both
technological and non-technological solutions should not be considered
to be mutually exclusive. With regard to human factors, the Coast Guard
has found that even the best training, by itself, cannot account for
the many variables contributing to human error. Proper and timely
execution of steering orders is critical to safe vessel navigation.
While training may assist in proper actions taken by the helmsman, the
failure alarm is intended to provide the operator with a warning when
the physical system does not respond as expected. This regulation is
therefore being retained and the Coast Guard intends to introduce this
system feature as a safety issue to be considered at IMO
[[Page 28269]]
for improving international regulations on steering system controls.
Sec. 113.50-5. (1) Several comments discussed the prescriptive
nature of the central amplifier-type system in paragraph (a) citing the
many optional system configurations available.
Paragraph (a) has been revised to allow alternative amplifier
systems.
(2) One comment suggested allowing for a combined public address,
general alarm, and fire detecting and alarm system, as provided for in
Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 2-89.
Paragraph (a) has been changed accordingly.
(3) One comment suggested adding a requirement from the IMO
Lifesaving Appliance Code to protect the public address system from
unauthorized use.
Paragraph (a) has been revised as suggested.
Sec. 113.50-10. (1) One comment suggested deleting the words
``enables an officer on the bridge to broadcast'' as unnecessary
prescriptive language.
The words have been deleted. The requirement for the announcing
station of the system to be on the bridge is retained in Sec. 113.50-
5(b).
(2) One comment recommended removing the replacement for two-way
communication in paragraph (b) because it appears to require a two-way
communication as part of the public address system.
Paragraph (b) has been deleted because two-way communication
requirements are covered in subpart 113.30.
Sec. 113.50-15. (1) Several comments recommended revising paragraph
(b) to remove the prescriptive words ``directed aft.''
Paragraph (b) has been revised as suggested by substituting a
performance standard.
(2) One comment suggested replacing table 113.50-15 with the
requirements from the IMO Lifesaving Appliance Code.
The table has been removed and the requirements for minimum sound
levels from the IMO Lifesaving Appliance Code have been added to
paragraph (c).
Sec. 113.65-5. (1) One comment suggested removing the note
following Sec. 113.65-5 as being out of date and merely a cross-
reference to other requirements for associated equipment.
The note has been removed.
Sec. 161.002-1. (1) Components of automatic fire detection systems,
EN54 parts 1 through 11, published by the European Committee for
Standardization (CEN) have been removed from this section because some
of the documents obtained by the Coast Guard were in draft form. Once
finalized, these documents will again be reviewed for inclusion.
(2) This section has been conformed to the current format for
incorporation by reference sections. Existing paragraph (b), left
untouched by the NPRM, is removed by this rule. The existing paragraph
required manufacturers to maintain a copy of certificates of approval
and the material listed in proposed paragraph (a) (paragraph (b) in
this rule). As the list of materials has grown, it is unnecessary for
manufacturers to maintain a copy of all of these documents.
(3) One comment suggested that American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) be listed as a source of all incorporated materials.
Though not all of the documents listed in Sec. 161.002-1
(Incorporation by reference) are available from ANSI, some may be
obtained from ANSI's address listed in Sec. 110.10-1.
Sec. 161.002-4. (1) A cross-reference to subchapter J has been
added to the end of paragraph (b)(1) because it has been deleted from
Sec. 161.002-1 (Incorporation by reference) for formatting reasons.
(2) One comment suggested removing paragraph (b)(3) because there
is no justification for its inclusion.
LR Test Specification Number 1 is an internationally accepted
testing protocol for shipboard electrical and electronic equipment
based upon various requirements of the IEC and is retained.
(3) An option has been provided in paragraph (b)(3) to include
table 4/11.1 of the ABS Rules.
Sec. 161.002-10. One comment recommended that paragraphs (b)(1)(i)
and (ii) be revised to clarify the term ``similar annunciating
device.''
Paragraph (b)(1) has been revised for clarification.
Sec. 161.002-15. (1) One comment requested that ``aural'' be
changed to ``audible.''
This change has been made because it conforms to Factory Mutual
terminology.
(2) Proposed paragraph (b) has been removed because SOLAS 74 is
already mentioned in Sec. 161.002-1.
Sec. 161.002-17. This section has been aligned with equivalency
provisions in other recent Coast Guard rulemakings.
Subpart 161.004. One comment noted that subpart 161.004, which is
removed, included Sec. 161.004-1 as well.
This change has been made accordingly.
Incorporation by Reference
The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in
Secs. 110.10-1 and 161.002-1 for incorporation by reference under 5
U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. The material is available as indicated in
that section.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that
order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and
procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040,
February 26, 1979). A Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the
regulatory policies and procedures of DOT has been prepared and is
available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under
``ADDRESSES.'' The Evaluation is summarized as follows.
Most of the changes to the regulations are either editorial or
update technical specifications to reflect latest practices. Although
some of these changes will cause minor cost increases for shipbuilders,
others will result in substantial savings. The cost increases resulting
from these rules will be more than offset by the cost savings, due to
relaxations in the rules. The Coast Guard estimates that the cost of
complying with the interim rule over the next 10 years will total
$33,753,392 (in present value); but, this cost will be more than offset
by the estimated net benefits of $73,538.213. This is a cost-benefit
ratio of $1.00 of costs to $2.18 of benefits.
Many of the changes causing cost increases are already current
marine industry practices, such as an increase in the protection of
cable from bilge water.
There are several intangible benefits. Due to the increased use of
national and international standards, certain items will now be more
readily available ``off the shelf'' for marine use. A significant
economic savings will result from the ability of equipment
manufacturers, in many cases, to meet the new performance
specifications instead of the old, prescriptive design standards. Also,
the cost of submitting detailed plans and specifications to the Coast
Guard for approval of certain equipment, such as sound powered
telephones, emergency loudspeaker systems, and navigation lights, will
be eliminated.
No comments were received to the evaluation in the preamble to the
NPRM. The Coast Guard solicits cost data and comments regarding the
economic impact of the changes made
[[Page 28270]]
since requirements were published in the NPRM.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (the Act) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), the Coast Guard must consider the economic impact on small
entities of a rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking is
required. ``Small entities'' may include (1) small businesses and not-
for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and
are not dominant in their fields and (2) governmental jurisdictions
with populations of less than 50,000.
The concerns of many small entities have been addressed by the
incorporation of wide variety of national and international standards.
This rule dramatically revises certain prescriptive requirements
concerning the design, specification, and approval of electrical
equipment and replaces them with performance-based requirements that
incorporate national and international standards. Whenever possible,
requirements have been adjusted to address the size of the vessel and,
in some cases, relaxed for smaller vessels. Small entities that build
or own vessels should experience reduced costs and potentially
increased business opportunities due to the flexibility of requirements
in these rules and the eliminating of regulatory burden.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under section 605(b) of the
Act that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Collection of Information
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews each rule that contains a
collection-of-information requirement to determine whether the
practical value of the information is worth the burden imposed by its
collection. Collection-of-information requirements include reporting,
recordkeeping, notification, and other, similar requirements. This rule
contains collection-of-information requirements in subpart 110.25 of
subchapter J and subpart 161.002 of subchapter Q.
I. The following particulars apply to subpart 110.25:
DOT No.: 2115.
OMB Control No.: 2115-0115.
Administration: U.S. Coast Guard.
Title: Electrical Engineering Requirements for Merchant Vessels.
Need For Information: Subpart 110.25 requires industry to complete
electrical engineering plans to meet performance requirements on newly
built vessels and modifications of current vessels.
Proposed Use of Information: This information is necessary to
determine compliance with the electrical regulations before vessel
construction or modification begins.
Frequency of Response: The information must be submitted when a
vessel is built or modified.
Burden Estimate: 478 hours.
Respondents: 175 owners or operators.
Average Burden Hours Per Respondent: 1 hour per submission.
II. The following parti
FR Doc. 96-13416 Electrical Engineering Requirements for Merchant Vessels
culars apply to subpart 161.002:
DOT No.: 2115.
OMB Control No.: 2115-0121.
Administration: U.S. Coast Guard.
Title: Electrical Engineering Requirements for Merchant Vessels.
Need for Information: Subpart 161.002 concerns application for type
approval of fire protection systems.
Proposed Use of Information: This information is necessary to
ensure compliance with the electrical regulations.
Frequency of Response: A response is due each time initial approval
is sought and each time a revision is requested.
Burden Estimate: 60 hours.
Respondents: 6 manufacturers.
Average Burden Hours Per Respondent: 10 hours per respondent.
The collection-of-information requirements were submitted to the
Department of Transportation on the following dates: February 6, 1996,
for subchapter Q and February 26, 1996, for subchapter J. The
requirements have not yet been approved by OMB under section 3504(h) of
the Paperwork Reduction Act. When approved by OMB, notice of approval
will be published in the Federal Register.
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that
this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule
and concluded that, under paragraph 2.B.2e(34) (d) and (e) of
Commandant Instruction M16475.1B, this rule is categorically excluded
from further environmental documentation. This rule concerns only
system arrangement and equipment approval. The approved system
arrangement and equipment required by this rule should contribute in
the enhancement of vessel safety and, thereby, help to minimize impacts
on the marine environment. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is
available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects
46 CFR Part 108
Fire prevention, Marine safety, Occupational safety and health, Oil
and gas exploration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels.
46 CFR Part 110
Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Vessels.
46 CFR Parts 111 and 112
Vessels.
46 CFR Part 113
Communications equipment, Fire prevention, Vessels.
46 CFR Part 161
Fire prevention, Incorporation by reference, Marine safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
46 CFR parts 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, and 161 as follows:
PART 108--DESIGN AND EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 108 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 3102, 3306; 49 CFR 1.46.
2. In Sec. 108.170, in the notes following paragraph (b), note 1 is
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 108.170 Definitions.
* * * * *
Notes: 1. Further requirements with respect to hazardous
locations are contained in part 111, subpart 111.105, of this
chapter.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 108.181, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 108.181 Ventilation for enclosed spaces.
* * * * *
(c) Each fan in a ventilating system must have remote controls
installed in accordance with part 111, subpart 111.103, of this
chapter.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 108.185, paragraph (c), introductory text, is revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 108.185 Ventilation for enclosed classified locations.
* * * * *
(c) Each unit must have alarms that are powered independently of
the
[[Page 28271]]
ventilation motor power and control circuitry and sound at a
continuously manned station when--
* * * * *
PART 110--GENERAL PROVISIONS
5. The authority citation for part 110 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1509; 43 U.S.C. 1333; 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703;
E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.45,
1.46; Sec. 110.01-2 also issued under 44 U.S.C. 3507.
6. In Sec. 110.01-1, paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised to read as
follows and paragraph (d) is removed and reserved:
Sec. 110.01-1 General.
(a) This subchapter applies to all electrical installations on
vessels subject to subchapters D, H, I, I-A, K, L, O, Q, R, T, U, and W
of this chapter whenever those subchapters require an electrical
installation to be in accordance with this subchapter.
(b) This subchapter applies only to electrical installations
contracted for after September 30, 1996.
* * * * *
(d) [Reserved]
* * * * *
7. Section 110.01-3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 110.01-3 Repairs and alterations.
(a) Repairs and replacements in kind must comply with either the
regulations in this subchapter or those in effect when the vessel was
built.
(b) Alterations and modifications, such as re-engining, re-
powering, upgrading of the main propulsion control system, or replacing
extensive amounts of cabling, must comply with either the regulations
in this subchapter or those in effect at the time the alterations or
modifications are made.
(c) Conversions, such as the addition of a midbody or a change in
the service of the vessel, are handled on a case-by-case basis by
Commandant (G-MOC).
8. Section 110.10-1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 110.10-1 Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this
subchapter with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register
under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other
than that specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the Coast Guard
must publish notice of change in the Federal Register; and the material
must be available to the public. All approved material is available for
inspection at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol
Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC, and at the U.S. Coast Guard, (G-
MSE), 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, and is
available from the sources indicated in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) The material approved for incorporation by reference in this
subchapter and the sections affected are as follows:
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) American
Bureau of Shipping, Two World Trade Center,
106th Floor, New York, NY 10048:
Rules for Building and Classing Steel 110.15-1; 111.12-1(a);
Vessels, 1995. 111.12-3; 111.12-5;
111.12-7; 111.33-11;
111.35-1; 111.70-1(a);
111.105-31(n); 111.105-
39(a); 111.105-40(a);
113.05-7.
Rules for Building and Classing Mobile 111.12-1(a); 111.12-3;
Offshore Drilling Units, 1994. 111.12-5; 111.12-7;
111.33-11; 111.35-1;
111.70-1(a).
American National Standards Institute (ANSI),
American National Standards Institute, 11
West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036:
ANSI/ASME A17.1, Safety Code for 111.91-1
Elevators and Escalators, 1993.
ANSI/ASME A17.1A, Addenda to ANSI/ASME 111.91-1.
A17.1, Safety Code for Elevators and
Escalators (including Errata, 1995),
1994.
ANSI/IEEE C37.04, Rating Structure for AC 111.54-1(c).
High-Voltage Circuit Breakers Rated on a
Symmetrical Current Basis, 1979.
ANSI C37.12, For AC High-Voltage Circuit 111.54-1(c).
Breakers Rated on a Symmetrical Current
Basis--Specification Guide, 1991.
American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM), ASTM International Headquarters, 100
Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA
19428-2959:
ASTM B 117-95, Standard Practice for 110.15-1(b).
Operating Salt Spray (Fog) Apparatus,
1996.
ASTM D 4066-94b, Standard Specification 111.60-1(c)
for Nylon Injection and Extrusion
Materials (PA), 1994.
Institute of Electrical and Electronic
Engineers (IEEE), IEEE Service Center, 445
Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854:
IEEE Std C37.13, IEEE Standard for Low- 111.54-1(c).
Voltage AC Power Circuit Breakers used
in Enclosures, 1990.
IEEE Std C37.14, IEEE Standard for Low- 111.54-1(c).
Voltage DC Power Circuit Breakers Used
in Enclosures, 1992.
IEEE Std 45-1983, IEEE Recommended 111.05-7; 111.15-2(b);
Practice for Electric Installations on 111.30-1; 111.30-5(a);
Shipboard, 1983. 111.30-19(a); 111.33-
3(a); 111.33-5(a);
111.60-1(a); 111.60-2;
111.60-3; 111.60-5(a);
111.60-6(a); 111.60-
11(c); 111.60-13(a);
111.60-19(b); 111.60-21;
111.60-23(d); 111.105-3;
111.105-31(e); 111.105-
41; 111.107-1(c); 113-65-
5.
IEEE Std 100-1992, The New IEEE Standard 110.15-1(a).
Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics
Terms, 1992.
IEEE Std 320, Application Guide for AC 111.54-1(c).
High-Voltage Circuit Breakers Rated on a
Symmetrical Current Basis (ANSI/IEEE
C37.010-79), 1979.
IEEE Std 331, Application Guide for Low- 111.54-1(c).
Voltage AC Nonintegrally Fused Power
Circuit Breakers (Using Separately
Mounted Current-Limiting Fuses) (ANSI/
IEEE C37.27), 1987.
IEEE Std 1202-1991, IEEE Standard for 111.60-2; 111.60-6(a);
Flame Testing of Cables for Use in Cable 111.107-1(c).
Tray in Industrial and Commercial
Occupancies, 1991.
International Association of Drilling
Contractors (IADC), International
Association of Drilling Contractors, PO Box
4287, Houston, TX 77210-4287:
[[Page 28272]]
IADC-DCCS-1/1991, Guidelines for 111.60-1(f).
Industrial System DC Cable for Mobile
Offshore Drilling Units, 1991.
International Electrotechnical Commission
(IEC), (Also available from ANSI--address
above.) International Electrotechnical
Commission, 1, Rue de Varembe, Geneva,
Switzerland:
IEC 68-2-52, Basic Environmental Testing 110.15-1(b).
Procedures, Part 2: Tests. Test KB: Salt
Mist, Cyclic (Sodium Chloride Solution),
1984.
IEC 79-0, Electrical Apparatus for 111.105-1; 111.105-3;
Explosive Gas Atmospheres, Part 0: 111.105-5; 111.105-7;
General Requirements, 1983 (Including 111.105-15(b); 111.105-
Amendment 2, 1991). 17(b).
IEC 79-1, Electrical Apparatus for 111.105-3; 111.105-5;
Explosive Gas Atmospheres, Part 1: 111.105-9; 111.105-
Construction and Test of Flameproof 15(b); 111.105-17(b).
Enclosures of Electrical Apparatus, 1990
[Including the First Supplement to the
Second Edition (1971), 1975, and
Amendment 1 to the Third Edition (1990),
1993].
IEC 79-2, Electrical Apparatus for 111.105-3; 111.105-5;
Explosive Gas Atmospheres, Part 2: 111.105-7(b); 111.105-
Electrical Apparatus--Type of Protection 15(b); 111.105-17(b).
``p'', 1983.
IEC 79-5, Electrical Apparatus for 111.105-3; 111.105-5;
Explosive Gas Atmospheres, Part 5: Sand- 111.105-15(a); 111.105-
Filled Apparatus. First Edition (1967), 15(b); 111.105-17(b).
Incorporating the First Supplement,
(1969).
IEC 79-6, Electrical Apparatus for 111.105-3; 111.105-5;
Explosive Gas Atmospheres, Part 6: Oil- 111.105-15(a); 111.105-
Immersion ``o'', 1995. 15(b); 111.105-17(b).
IEC 79-7, Electrical Apparatus for 111.105-3; 111.105-5;
Explosive Gas Atmospheres, Part 7: 111.105-15(a); 111.105-
Increased Safety ``e'', 1990 (Including 15(b); 111.105-17(b).
Amendment 1, 1991, and Amendment 2 1993).
IEC 79-11, Electrical Apparatus for 111.105-3; 111.105-5;
Explosive Gas Atmospheres, Part 11: 111.105-11(a); 111.105-
Intrinsic Safety ``i'', 1991. 15(b); 111.105-17(b).
IEC 79-15, Electrical Apparatus for 111.105-3; 111.105-5;
Explosive Gas Atmospheres, Part 15: 111.105-15(a); 111.105-
Electrical Apparatus with Type of 5(b); 111.105-17(b).
Protection ``n'', 1987.
IEC 79-18, Electrical Apparatus for 111.105-3; 111.105-5;
Explosive Gas Atmospheres, Part 18: 111.105-15(a); 111.105-
Encapsulation ``m'', 1992. 15(b); 111.105-17(b).
IEC 92-3, Electrical Installation in 111.105-7; 111.60-1(a);
Ships, Part 3: Cables (construction, 111.60-3(a); 111.60-
testing and installations) Second 3(c); 111.81-1(d).
Edition, 1965, as amended through
August, 1982.
IEC 92-101, Electrical Installation in 111.15-1(a); 111.81-1(d).
Ships, Part 101: Definitions and General
Requirements, 1994 (Including Amendment
1, 1995).
IEC 92-201, Electrical Installation in 111.70-3(a); 111.81-1(d).
Ships, Part 201: System Design--General
1994.
IEC 92-202, Electrical Installation in 111.50-3(c); 111.50-3(e);
Ships, Part 202: System Design-- 111.50-3(g); 111.53-
Protection, 1994. 1(a); 111.54-1(a);
111.81-1(d).
IEC 92-301, Electrical Installations in 111.25-5(a); 111.70-1(a);
Ships, Part 301: Equipment--Generators 111.81-1(d).
and Motors, 1980 (Including Amendment 1,
1994, and Amendment 2, 1995).
IEC 92-302, Electrical Installations in 111.30-1; 111.30-5(a);
Ships, Part 302: Equipment--Switchgear 111.30-19(a); 111.81-
and Controlgear Assemblies, 1980 1(d).
(Including Amendment 1, 1989, and
Amendment 2, 1994).
IEC 92-303, Electrical Installations in 111.20-15; 111.81-1(d).
Ships, Part 303: Equipment--Transformers
for Power and Lighting, 1980.
IEC 92-304, Electrical Installations in 111.33-3(a); 111.33-5(b);
Ships, Part 304: Equipment-- 111.81-1(d).
Semiconductor Converters, 1980
(Including Amendment 1, 1995).
IEC 92-306, Electrical Installations in 111.75-20(a); 111.81-
Ships, Part 306: Equipment--Luminaires 1(d).
and Accessories, 1980.
IEC 92-352, Electrical Installations in 111.60-3(a); 111.60-3(c);
Ships, Part 352: Equipment--Choice and 111.60-5; 111.81-1(d).
Installation of Cables for Low-Voltage
Power Systems, 1979, (Including
Amendment 1, 1987, and Amendment 2,
1994).
IEC 92-501, Electrical Installations in 111.81-1(d).
Ships, Part 501: Special Features--
Electric Propulsion Plant, 1984.
IEC 92-502, Electrical Installations in 111.81-1(d); 111.105-
Ships, Part 502: Tankers--Special 31(e).
Features, 1994.
IEC 92-503, Electrical Installations in 111.30-5(a); 111.81-1(d).
Ships, Part 503: Special Features--A.C.
Supply systems with Voltages in the
Range Above 1KV up to and including
11KV, 1975.
IEC 92-504, Electrical Installations in 111.81-1(d).
Ships, Part 504: Special Features--
Control and Instrumentation, 1994.
IEC 331, Fire resisting characteristics 113.30-25(i).
of electric cables, 1970.
IEC 332-1, Tests on Electric Cables Under 111.30-19(b).
Fire Conditions, Part 1: Test on a
Single Vertical Insulated Wire or Cable,
1993.
IEC 332-3, Tests on Electric Cables Under 111.60-1(b); 111.60-2;
Fire Conditions, Part 3: Test on bunched 111.60-6(a); 111.107-
wires or cables, 1992. 1(c).
IEC 363, Short-Circuit Current Evaluation 111.52-5(c).
with Special Regard to Rated Short-
Circuit Capacity of Circuit-Breakers in
Installations in Ships, 1972.
IEC 529, Degrees of protection provided 111.01-9(a); 111.01-9(b);
by enclosures (IP Code) 1989. 111.01-9(c); 111.01-
9(d); 111.01-9 (Note);
113.10-7; 113.20-3;
113.25-11; 113.30-25(c);
113.30-25(h); 113.40-
10(b).
IEC 533, Electromagnetic Compatibility of 113.05-7.
Electrical and Electronic Installations
in Ships, 1977.
IEC 947-2, Low-Voltage Switchgear and 111.54-1(b); 111.54-1(c).
Controlgear, Part 2: Circuit Breakers,
1989 (Including Amendment 1, 1992 and
Amendment 2, 1993).
IEC IP Code, see IEC 529.
International Maritime Organization (IMO),
International Maritime Organization, 4
Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, England:
International Convention for the Safety 111.99-5; 111.105-31(n);
of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS 74) 112.15-1(r); 113.25-6.
Consolidated Edition, (Including 1992
Amendments to SOLAS 74, and 1994
Amendments to SOLAS 74), 1992.
[[Page 28273]]
The International Society for Measurement and
Control (ISA), International Society for
Measurement and Control, 67 Alexander Drive.
P.O. Box 12277 Research Triangle Park, NC
27709:
RP 12.6, Wiring Practices for Hazardous 111.105-11(e).
(Classified) Locations Instrumentation
Part I: Intrinsic Safety, 1995.
National Electrical Manufacturers Association
(NEMA), National Electrical Manufacturers
Association, 2101 L Street, NW, Washington,
DC 20036:
NEMA Standards Publication No. ICS 2, 111.70-3(a).
Industrial Control and Systems
Controllers, Contractors, and Overload
Relays Rated not more than 2000 Volts AC
or 750 Volts DC, 1993.
NEMA Standards Publication No. 2.3 1983, 111.70-3(a).
Instructions for the Handling,
Installation, Operation, and Maintenance
of Motor Control Centers, 1983.
NEMA Standards Publication No. 2.4, NEMA 111.70-3(a).
and IEC Devices for Motor Service--A
Guide for Understanding the Differences,
1989.
NEMA Standards Publication No. 250, 111.01-9(a); 111.01-9(b);
Enclosures for Electrical Equipment 111.01-9(c); 111.01-
(1000 Volts Maximum), 1991. 9(d); 111.01-9 (Note);
111.10-7; 113.20-3;
113.25-11; 113.30-25(c);
113.30-25(h); 113.40-
10(b).
NEMA Standards Publication No. WC-3, 111.60-13(a); 111.60-
Rubber Insulated Wire and Cable for the 13(c).
Transmission and Distribution of
Electrical Energy, 1980 (with revisions
through May 1989).
NEMA Standards Publication No. WC-8, 111.60-13(a); 111.60-
Ethylene-Propylene-Rubber-Insulated Wire 13(c).
and Cable for the Transmission and
Distribution of Electrical Energy, 1988
(with revisions through 1992).
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA),
National Fire Protection Association, 1
Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269:
NEC, see NFPA 70.........................
NFPA 70, National Electrical Code (NEC), 111.05-33; 111.20-15;
1996. 111.25-5(a); 111.50-
3(c); 111.50-9; 111.53-
1(a); 111.54-1(a);
111.55-1(a); 111.59-1;
Table 111.60-7; 111.60-
11(f); 111.60-13(a);
111.60-13(b); 111.60-
13(c); 111.60-23; 111.81-
1(d); 111.83-3(a);
111.105-1; 111.105-1
(Note); 111.105-3;
111.105-5; 111.105-7;
111.105-9; 111.105-
15(a); 111.105-17(b);
111.107-1(b).
NFPA 77, Recommended Practice on Static 111.105-27.
Electricity, 1993.
NFPA 99, Standard for Health Care 111.105-37.
Facilities, 1996.
NFPA 496, Standard for Purged and 111.105-7(b).
Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical
Equipment, 1993.
Naval Publications and Forms Center (NPFC),
Naval Publications and Forms Center,
Customer Service--Code 1052, 5801 Tabor
Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19120:
MIL-W-76D, Military Specification Wire 111.60-11(c).
and Cable, Hook-up, Electrical,
Insulated, General Specification For,
1992.
MIL-W-16878F, Military Specification, 111.60-11(c).
Wire, Electrical, Insulated, General
Specification For, 1992.
MIL-C-24640A, Military Specification 111.60-1(a); 111.60-3(c).
Cables, Light Weight, Electric, Low
Smoke, For Shipboard Use, General
Specification For, 1995.
MIL-C-24643A, Military Specification 111.60-1(a); 111.60-3(c).
Cables and Cords, Electric, Low Smoke,
For Shipboard Use, General Specification
For, 1994 (Including Amendment 1).
Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), Naval Sea
Systems Command, Code 55Z, Department of
Navy Washington, DC 20362:
DDS 300-2, A. C. Fault Current 111.52-5.
Calculations, 1988.
MIL-HDBK-299 (SH), Military Handbook 111.60-3(c).
Cable Comparison Handbook Data
Pertaining to Electric Shipboard Cable,
1989.
Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL),
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., ATTN:
Publications Stock, 333 Pfingsten Rd.
Northbrook, IL 60062-2096:
UL 44, Standard for Rubber-Insulated Wire 111.60-11(c).
and Cable, 1991 (including revisions
through February, 1996).
UL 50, Standard for Enclosures for 111.81-1(d).
Electrical Equipment, 1995.
UL 62, Standard for Flexible Cord and 111.60-13(a).
Fixture Wire, 1991 (including revisions
through February, 1996).
UL 83, Standard for Thermoplastic- 111.60-1(c); 111.60-
Insulated Wires and Cables, 1991 11(c).
(including revisions through March,
1996).
UL 489, Standard for Molded-Case Circuit 111.54-1(b).
Breakers and Circuit-Breaker Enclosures,
1991 (including revisions through June,
1995).
UL 514A, Standard for Metallic Outlet 111.81-1(d).
Boxes, 1991 (including revisions through
April, 1995).
UL 514B, Standard for Fittings for 111.81-1(d).
Conduit and Outlet Boxes, 1989
(including revisions through April,
1995).
UL 514C, Standard for Nonmetallic Outlet 111.81-1(d).
Boxes, Flush-Device Boxes, and Covers,
1988 (including revisions through April,
1995).
UL 595, Standard for Marine-Type Electric 111.75-20(a); 111.75-
Lighting Fixtures, 1985 (including 20(e).
revisions through September, 1991).
UL 913, Standard for Intrinsically Safe 111.105-11(a).
Apparatus and Associated Apparatus for
Use in Class I, II, and III Division 1,
Hazardous (Classified) Locations, 1988.
[[Page 28274]]
UL 1042, Standard for Electric Baseboard 111.87-3(a).
Heating Equipment, 1994 (including
revisions through November, 1995).
UL 1072, Standard for Medium-Voltage 111.60-1(e).
Power Cables, 1995 (including revisions
through January, 1996).
UL 1096, Standard for Electric Central 111.87-3(a).
Air Heating Equipment, 1986 (including
revisions through January, 1988).
UL 1104, Standard for Marine Navigation 111.75-17(d).
Lights, 1981 (including revisions
through May, 1988).
UL 1203, Standard for Explosion-Proof and 111.105-9.
Dust-Ignition-Proof Electrical Equipment
for Use in Hazardous (Classified)
Locations, 1994 (including revisions
through October, 1995).
UL 1569, Standard for Metal-Clad Cables, 111.60-23(a).
1995 (including revisions through April,
1996).
UL 1570, Standard for Fluorescent 111.75-20.
Lighting Fixtures, 1988 (including
revisions through April, 1996).
UL 1571, Standard for Incandescent 111.75-20.
Lighting Fixtures, 1995 (including
revisions through April, 1996).
UL 1572, Standard for High Intensity 111.75-20.
Discharge Lighting Fixtures, 1995
(including revisions through May, 1996).
UL 1573, Standard for Stage ad Studio 111.75-20.
Lighting Units, 1994 (including
revisions through February, 1995).
UL 1574, Standard for Track Lighting 111.75-20.
Systems, 1995 (including revisions
through July, 1995).
ANSI/UL 1581, Reference Standard for 111.30-19(b); 111.60-2;
Electrical Wires, Cables, and Flexible 111.60-6(a).
Cords, 1991 (including revisions through
January, 1996).
(c) The word ``should,'' when used in material incorporated by
reference, is to be construed the same as the words ``must'' or
``shall'' for the purposes of this subchapter.
9. Section 110.5-1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 110.15-1 Definitions.
As used in this subchapter--
(a) The electrical and electronic terms are defined in IEEE Std 100
or IEC 92-101.
(b) In addition to the definitions in paragraph (a) of this
section--
Coastwise Vessel means a vessel that normally navigates the waters
of any ocean or the Gulf of Mexico 20 nautical miles or less offshore
and is certificated for coastwise navigation by the Coast Guard.
Commandant means the Commandant of the Coast Guard.
Corrosion resistant material or finish means any material or finish
that meets the testing requirements of ASTM B-117 or test Kb in IEC 68-
2-52 for 200 hours and does not show pitting, cracking, or other
deterioration more severe than that resulting from a similar test on
passivated AISI Type 304 stainless steel.
Corrosive location means a location exposed to the weather on
vessels operating in salt water or a location on board which may be
exposed to the corrosive effects of the cargo carried or of the
vessel's systems.
Dead ship condition is the condition in which the main propulsion
plant, boilers and auxiliaries are not in operation due to the absence
of power.
Dripproof means enclosed so that equipment meets at least a NEMA
250 Type 1 with dripshield, NEMA 250 Type 2, or an IEC IP 32 rating.
Embarkation station means a location from which persons embark into
survival craft or are assembled before embarking into survival craft.
Emergency squad means the crew designated on the station bill as
the nucleus of a damage control party.
Flashpoint means the minimum temperature at which a liquid gives
off a vapor in sufficient concentration to form an ignitable mixture
with air near the surface of the liquid, as specified by the
appropriate test procedure and apparatus.
Great Lakes vessel means a vessel that navigates exclusively on the
Great Lakes and their connecting and tributary waters.
Independent laboratory means a laboratory that is accepted by the
Commandant under part 159 of this chapter for the testing and listing
or certification of electrical equipment.
Location not requiring an exceptional degree of protection means a
location which is not exposed to the environmental conditions outlined
in the definition for locations requiring exceptional degrees of
protection. This location requires the degree of protection of
Sec. 111.01-9 (c) or (d) of this chapter. These locations include--
(1) An accommodation space;
(2) A dry store room;
(3) A passageway adjacent to quarters;
(4) A water closet without a shower or bath;
(5) A radio, gyro and chart room; and
(6) A location with similar environmental conditions.
Location requiring an exceptional degree of protection means a
location exposed to weather, seas, splashing, pressure-directed
liquids, or similar moisture conditions. These locations include--
(1) On deck;
(2) A machinery space;
(3) A cargo space;
(4) A location within a galley or pantry area, laundry, or water
closet which contains a shower or bath; and
(5) Other spaces with similar environmental conditions.
Marine inspector or inspector means a civilian employee or military
member of the Coast Guard assigned by an Officer in Charge, Marine
Inspection, or the Commandant to perform duties with respect to the
inspection, enforcement, and administration of vessel safety and
navigation laws and regulations.
Nonsparking fan means nonsparking fan as defined in ABS Rules 4/
5.149.6.
Ocean vessel means a vessel that navigates the waters of any ocean
or the Gulf of Mexico more than 20 nautical miles offshore and is
certificated by the Coast Guard for ocean navigation.
Qualified person means a person who by virtue of that person's
knowledge, ability, experience, specialized training, or licensing can
competently and safely perform required electrical duties or functions.
Waterproof means enclosed so that equipment meets at least a NEMA
250 Type 4 or 4X or an IEC IP 56 or 66 rating.
Watertight means enclosed so that equipment meets at least a NEMA
250 Type 6 or 6P or an IEC IP 67 or 68 rating.
10. Section 110.20-1 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 28275]]
Sec. 110.20-1 Equivalents.
The Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center (MSC), may approve any
arrangement, fitting, appliance, apparatus, equipment, calculation,
information, or test that provides a level of safety equivalent to that
established by specific provisions of this subchapter. Requests for
approval must be submitted to the Marine Safety Center. If necessary,
the Marine Safety Center may require engineering evaluations and tests
to demonstrate the equivalence of the substitute.
11. In Sec. 110.25-1, paragraphs (c), (i), (j), and (l) and the
notes to paragraphs (m) and (n) are revised and paragraph (o) is added
to read as follows:
Sec. 110.25-1 Plans and information required for new construction.
* * * * *
(c) Elementary and isometric or deck wiring plans, including the
location of each cable splice, a list of symbols, and the
manufacturer's name and identification of each item of electrical
equipment, of each--
(1) Steering gear circuit and steering motor controller;
(2) General emergency alarm system;
(3) Sound-powered telephone or other fixed communication system;
(4) Power-operated boat winch;
(5) Fire detecting and alarm system;
(6) Smoke detecting system;
(7) Electric watertight door system;
(8) Fire door holding systems;
(9) Public address system;
(10) Manual alarm system; and
(11) Supervised patrol system.
* * * * *
(i) For vessels with hazardous locations for which part 111,
subpart 111.105, is applicable, plans showing the extent and
classification of all hazardous locations, including information on--
(1) Equipment identification by manufacturer's name and model
number;
(2) Equipment use within the system;
(3) Cable parameters;
(4) Equipment locations;
(5) Installation details; and
(6) Independent laboratory certificate of testing.
(j) Plans and installation instructions for each approved component
of an intrinsically safe system listed or certified by an independent
laboratory (see Sec. 111.105-11 of this chapter).
* * * * *
(l) Plans and information sufficient to evaluate equipment to be
considered for equivalency under Sec. 110.20-1.
(m) * * *
Note to paragraph (m): This equipment evaluation is generally
performed by the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center and
includes items such as cable splices, signalling lights, shore
connection boxes, submersible pumps, engine order telegraph systems,
shaft speed and thrust indicator systems, and steering gear failure
alarm systems.
(n) * * *
Note to paragraph (n): This equipment evaluation is generally
performed by the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center, and
includes items such as circuit breakers, switches, lighting
fixtures, air heating equipment, busways, outlet boxes, and junction
boxes. Items required to meet an IEEE, IEC, NEMA, UL, ANSI, or other
industry standard or a military specification are considered
acceptable if manufacturer's certification of compliance is
indicated on a material list or plan. However, if the standards
require third-party testing and listing or certification, proof of
listing or certification by an independent laboratory must also be
submitted.
(o) Detailed analysis showing compliance with the MC cable
requirements in Sec. 111.60-23(b) of this chapter.
Sec. 110.25-3 [Amended]
12. In Sec. 110.25-3, in paragraph (a)(1), remove ``(G-MSC)'' and
add, in its place, ``(MSC)''; paragraph (a)(3) is removed; and, in the
note to paragraph (c), remove ``a Coast Guard Technical Office'' and
add, in their place, ``Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center,''.
13. In Sec. 110.30-1, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 110.30-1 General.
(a) This section supplements the general requirements for testing
and inspecting vessels in other parts of this chapter.
* * * * *
14. Section 110.30-7 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 110.30-7 Repairs or alterations.
The Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection must be notified before--
(a) Alterations or modifications that deviate from approved plans;
or
(b) Repairs, alterations, or modifications that affect the safety
of the vessel.
PART 111--ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS--GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
15. The authority citation for part 111 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703; 49 CFR 1.46.
16. In Sec. 111.01-1, paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 111.01-1 General.
* * * * *
(c) Maintenance of system integrity through compliance with the
applicable system requirements (IEEE, NEC, IEC, etc.) to which plan
review has been approved.
17. Section 111.01-5 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.01-5 Protection from bilge water.
Each of the following in or around the bilge area must be arranged
or constructed so that it cannot be damaged by bilge water:
(a) Generators.
(b) Motors.
(c) Electric coupling.
(d) Electric cable.
18. Section 111.01-7 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.01-7 Accessibility and spacing.
(a) The design and arrangement of electric apparatus must afford
accessibility to each part as needed to facilitate proper inspection,
adjustment, maintenance, or replacement.
(b) Within an enclosure, the spacing between energized components
(or between an energized component and ground) must be to the
appropriate industry standard for the voltage and current utilized in
the circuit. Additionally, spacing within any enclosure must be
sufficient to facilitate servicing.
19. Section 111.01-9 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.01-9 Degrees of protection.
(a) Interior electrical equipment exposed to dripping liquids or
falling solid particles must be manufactured to at least NEMA 250 Type
2 or IEC IP 32 degree of protection as appropriate for the service
intended.
(b) Electrical equipment in locations requiring exceptional degrees
of protection as defined in Sec. 110.15-1 of this chapter must be
enclosed to meet at least a NEMA 250 Type 4 or 4X or IEC IP 56; or NEMA
250 Type 6 or 6P or IEC IP 67 degree of protection as appropriate for
the service intended. Each enclosure must be designed in such a way
that the total rated temperature of the equipment inside the enclosure
is not exceeded.
(c) Central control consoles and similar control enclosures must be
manufactured to at least NEMA 250 Type 2 or IEC IP 32 degree of
protection regardless of location.
(d) Equipment for interior locations not requiring exceptional
degrees of protection must be manufactured to at least NEMA 250 Type 1
with dripshield or IEC IP 11.
Note to Sec. 111.01-9: The degrees of protection designated in
this section are described in NEMA Standards Publication No. 250 and
IEC IP Code 529.
[[Page 28276]]
20. Section 111.01-15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.01-15 Temperature ratings.
(a) In this subchapter, an ambient temperature of 40 deg.C is
assumed except as otherwise stated.
(b) A 50 deg.C ambient temperature is assumed for all rotating
electrical machinery in boiler rooms, engine rooms, auxiliary machinery
rooms, and weather decks, unless it can be shown that a 45 deg.C
ambient temperature will not be exceeded in these spaces.
(c) A 45 deg.C ambient temperature is assumed for cable and all
other (non-rotating) electrical equipment in boiler rooms, engine
rooms, auxiliary machinery rooms, and weather decks.
(d) Unless otherwise indicated in this subchapter, a 55 deg.C
ambient temperature is assumed for all control and instrumentation
equipment.
(e) If electrical equipment is utilized in a space in which the
equipment's rated ambient temperature is below the assumed ambient
temperature of the space, its load must be derated. The assumed ambient
temperature of the space plus the equipment's actual temperature rise
at its derated load must not exceed the equipment's total rated
temperature (equipment's rated ambient temperature plus its rated
temperature rise).
21. Section 111.01-17 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.01-17 Voltage and frequency variations.
Unless otherwise stated, electrical equipment must function at
variations of at least 5 percent of rated frequency and +6
percent to -10 percent of rated voltage. This limitation does not
address transient conditions.
22. Section 111.01-19 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 111.01-19 Inclination of the vessel.
(a) All electrical equipment must be designed and installed to
operate under any combination of the following conditions:
(1) 15 degrees static list, 22.5 degrees dynamic roll; and
(2) 7.5 degrees static trim.
(b) All emergency installations must be designed and installed to
operate when the vessel is at 22.5 degrees list and 10 degrees trim.
23. In Sec. 111.05-1, the text, excluding the note, is revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 111.05-1 Purpose.
This subpart contains requirements for the grounding of electric
systems, circuits, and equipment.
* * * * *
24. Section 111.05-7 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.05-7 Armored and metallic-sheathed cable.
When installed, the metallic armor or sheath must meet the
installation requirements of IEC 92-3 or section 20 of IEEE Std 45.
25. Section 111.05-9 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.05-9 Masts.
Each nonmetallic mast and topmast must have a lightning ground
conductor.
26. Section 111.05-19 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.05-19 Tank vessels; grounded distribution systems.
(a) If the voltage of a distribution system is less than 1,000
volts, line to line, a tank vessel must not have a grounded
distribution system.
(b) If the voltage of a distribution system on a tank vessel is
1,000 volts or greater, line to line, and the distribution system is
grounded, any resulting current must not flow through a hazardous
(classified) location.
27. In Sec. 111.05-23, paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 111.05-23 Location of ground detection indicators.
* * * * *
(d) Be provided (at the distribution switchboard or at another
location, such as a centralized monitoring position for the circuit
affected) for each branch circuit that is isolated from the main source
by a transformer or other device.
28. Section 111.05-25 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.05-25 Ungrounded systems.
Each ungrounded system must be provided with a suitably sensitive
ground detection system located at the respective switchboard which
provides continuous indication of circuit status to ground with a
provision to momentarily remove the indicating device from the
reference ground.
29. Section 111.05-27 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.05-27 Grounded neutral alternating current systems.
Each system must have a suitably sensitive ground detection system
which indicates current in the ground connection, be able to withstand
the maximum available fault current without damage, and provides
continuous indication of circuit status to ground with a provision to
momentarily remove the indicating device from the reference ground.
30. Section 111.05-29 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.05-29 Dual voltage direct current systems.
Each dual voltage direct current system must have a suitably
sensitive ground detection system which indicates current in the ground
connection, has a range of at least 150 percent of neutral current
rating and indicates the polarity of the fault.
31. Section 111.05-33 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.05-33 Equipment grounding conductors.
(a) Each equipment grounding conductor must be sized in accordance
with article 250-95 of the National Electrical Code (the NEC) (NFPA
70).
(b) Each grounding conductor of a cable must be permanently
identified as a grounding conductor in accordance with the requirements
of article 310-12(b) of the NEC.
32. Section 111.05-37 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.05-37 Overcurrent devices.
(a) A permanently grounded conductor must not have an overcurrent
device unless the overcurrent device simultaneously opens each
ungrounded conductor of the circuit.
(b) The neutral conductor of the emergency-main switchboard bus-tie
must not have a switch or circuit breaker.
Sec. 111.05-39 [Removed]
33. Section 111.05-39 is removed.
34. In Sec. 111.10-1, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.10-1 Definitions.
* * * * *
(a) Ships's service loads mean electrical equipment for all
auxiliary services necessary for maintaining the vessel in a normal,
operational and habitable condition. Ship's service loads include, but
are not limited to, all safety, lighting, ventilation, navigational,
communications, habitability, and auxiliary propulsion loads.
Electrical propulsion motor, bow thruster motor, cargo transfer,
drilling, cargo refrigeration for other than Class 5.2 organic
peroxides and Class 4.1 self-reactive substances, and other industrial
type loads are not included.
* * * * *
35. Section 111.10-3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.10-3 Two generating sources.
In addition to the emergency power sources required under part 112
of this chapter, each self-propelled vessel and
[[Page 28277]]
each mobile offshore drilling unit must have at least two electric
generating sources.
36. Section 111.10-4 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.10-4. Power requirements, generating sources.
(a) The aggregate capacity of the electric's ship's service
generating sources required in Sec. 111.10-3 must be sufficient for the
ship's service loads.
(b) With the ship's service generating source of the largest
capacity stopped, the combined capacity of the remaining electric
ship's service generating source or sources must be sufficient to
supply those services necessary to provide normal operational
conditions of propulsion and safety, and minimum comfortable conditions
of habitability. Habitability services include cooking, heating, air
conditioning (where installed), domestic refrigeration, mechanical
ventilation, sanitation, and fresh water.
(c) The capacity of the ship's service generating sources must be
sufficient for supplying the ship's service loads without the use of a
generating source which is dependent upon the speed or direction of the
main propelling engines or shafting.
(d) Operating generators must provide a continuous and
uninterrupted source of power for the ship's service load under normal
operational conditions. Any vessel speed change or throttle movement
must not cause a ship's service load power interruption.
(e) Vessels with electric propulsion that have two or more
constant-voltage generators which supply both ship's service and
propulsion power do not need additional ship's service generators
provided that with any one propulsion/ship's service generator out of
service the capacity of the remaining generator(s) is sufficient for
the electrical loads necessary to provide normal operational conditions
of propulsion and safety, and minimum comfortable conditions of
habitability.
(f) A generator driven by a main propulsion unit (such as a shaft
generator) which is capable of providing electrical power continuously,
regardless of the speed and direction of the propulsion shaft, may be
considered one of the ship's service generating sets required by
Sec. 111.10-3. A main-engine-dependent generator which is not capable
of providing continuous electrical power may be utilized as a
supplemental generator provided that a required ship's service
generator or generators having sufficient capacity to supply the ship's
service loads can be automatically brought on line prior to the main-
engine-dependent generator tripping off-line due to a change in the
speed or direction of the main propulsion unit.
37. In Sec. 111.10-7, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.10-7 Dead ship.
* * * * *
(b) If the emergency generator is used for part or all of the
electric power necessary to start the main propulsion plant from a dead
ship condition, the emergency generator must be capable of providing
power to all emergency lighting, emergency internal communications
systems, and fire detection and alarm systems in addition to the power
utilized for starting the main propulsion plant. Additional
requirements are in Sec. 112.05-3(c) of this chapter.
38. Section 111.10-9 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.10-9
Ship's service supply transformer; 2 required.
If transformers are used to supply the ship's service distribution
system required by this subpart for ships and mobile offshore drilling
units, there must be at least two installed, independent power
transformers. With the largest transformer out of service, the capacity
of the remaining units must be sufficient to supply the ship service
loads.
Note to Sec. 111.10-9: A ship's service supply system would
consist of transformers, overcurrent protection devices, and cables,
and would normally be located in the system between a medium voltage
bus and a low voltage ship's service switchboard.
Sec. 111.10-11 [Removed]
39. Section 111.10-11 is removed.
40. Section 111.12-1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.12-1 Prime movers.
(a) Prime movers must meet part 58, subpart 58.10, of this chapter,
section 4/5.21 of the ABS Rules, and for mobile offshore drilling
units, section 4/3.21 of the ABS MODU Rules. Additional requirements
for prime movers for emergency generators are in part 112, subpart
112.50, of this chapter.
(b) Each generator prime mover must have an overspeed device that
is independent of the normal operating governor and adjusted so that
the speed cannot exceed the maximum rated speed by more than 15
percent.
(c) Each prime mover must shut down automatically upon loss of
lubricating pressure to the generator bearings if the generator is
directly coupled to the engine. If the generator is operating from a
power take-off, such as a shaft driven generator on a main propulsion
engine, the generator must automatically declutch (disconnect) from the
prime mover upon loss of lubricating pressure to generator bearings.
Sec. 111.12-3 [Amended]
41. In Sec. 111.12-3, remove the words ``Section 35.23 of the
American Bureau of Shipping's `Rules for Building and Classing Steel
Vessels,' '' and add, in their place, the words, ``section 4/5.23 of
the ABS Rules or, for a mobile offshore drilling unit, section 4/3.23
of the ABS MODU Rules,''.
42. Section 111.12-5 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.12-5 Generator construction and testing.
Each generator must meet the applicable construction and test
requirements of section 4/5 of the ABS Rules, or for mobile offshore
drilling units, section 4/3 of the ABS MODU Rules.
43. Section 111.12-7 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.12-7 Voltage regulation and parallel operation.
Voltage regulation and parallel operation must meet sections 4/5.31
and 4/5.33 of the ABS Rules, or for mobile offshore drilling units,
sections 4/3.31 and 4/3.33 of the ABS MODU Rules.
Sec. 111.12-11 [Amended]
44. In Sec. 111.12-11, in paragraph (c)(1), remove the words
``inverse time'' and add, in their place, the word ``longtime'' and, in
the heading to paragraph (d), remove the words ``inverse time'' and
add, in their place, the words ``longtime overcurrent''.
45. Section 111.15-1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.15-1 General.
Each battery must meet the requirements of this subpart.
46. Section 111.15-2 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.15-2 Battery construction.
(a) A battery cell, when inclined at 40 degrees from the vertical,
must not spill electrolyte.
(b) Each fully charged lead-acid battery must have a specific
gravity that meets section 16 of IEEE Std 45.
(c) Batteries must not evolve hydrogen at a rate exceeding that of
a similar size lead-acid battery under similar charging condition.
(d) Batteries must be constructed to take into account the
environmental conditions of a marine installation,
[[Page 28278]]
including temperature, vibration, and shock.
47. In Sec. 111.15-3, the introductory text and paragraphs (a),
(b), and (c) are redesignated as paragraphs (a) introductory text,
(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) and paragraph (b) is added to read as
follows:
Sec. 111.15-3 Battery categories.
* * * * *
(b) Batteries that generate less hydrogen under normal charging and
discharging conditions than an equivalent category of lead-acid
batteries (e.g., sealed batteries) may have their battery category
reduced to an equivalent category of lead-acid batteries.
48. In Sec. 111.15-5, paragraphs (a), (c), (e), (f), and (g) and
the last sentence of paragraph (d) are revised to read as follows and
paragraph (h) is removed:
Sec. 111.15-5 Battery installation.
(a) Large batteries. Each large battery installation must be in a
room that is only for batteries or a box on deck. Installed electrical
equipment must meet the hazardous location requirements in support
111.105 of this part.
* * * * *
(c) Small batteries. Small size battery installations must be
located in well-ventilated spaces. They must not be located in closets,
staterooms, or similar spaces, unless the batteries are sealed.
(d) * * *. Each battery tray must provide adequate accessibility
for installation, maintenance, and removal of the batteries.
(e) Nameplates. Each battery must be provided with the name of its
manufacturer, model number, type designation, either the cold cranking
amp rating or the amp-hour rating at a specific discharge and, for a
lead-acid battery, the fully charged specific gravity value. This
information must be permanently fixed to the battery.
(f) Lining in battery rooms and lockers. (1) Each battery room and
locker must have a watertight lining that is--
(i) On each shelf to a height of at least 76 mm (3 inches); or
(ii) On the deck to a height of at least 152 mm (6 inches).
(2) For lead-acid batteries, the lining must be 1.6 mm (\1/16\
inch) thick lead or other material that is corrosion-resistant to the
electrolyte of the battery.
(3) For alkaline batteries, the lining must be 0.8 mm (\1/32\ inch)
thick steel or other material that is corrosion-resistant to the
electrolyte of the battery.
(g) Lining of battery boxes. Each battery box must have a
watertight lining to a height of at least 76 mm (3 inches) that meets
paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of this section.
49. In Sec. 111.15-10, paragraph (g) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.15-10 Ventilation.
* * * * *
(g) Boxes for small battery installations. Each box for a small
battery installation must have openings near the top to allow escape of
gas. If the installation is in a non-environmentally-controlled
location, the installation must prevent the ingress of water.
50. Section 111.15-20 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.15-20 Conductors.
(a) Each conductor penetration to a battery room must be made
watertight.
(b) The termination of each cable must be sealed to prevent the
entrance of electrolyte by spray or creepage.
(c) Each connecting cable must have sufficient capacity to carry
the maximum charging current or maximum discharge current, whichever is
greater.
51. Section 111.15-30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.15-30 Battery chargers.
Each battery charger enclosure must meet Sec. 111.01-9.
Additionally, each charger must be suitable for the size and type of
battery installation that it serves. Chargers incorporating ground
autotransformers must not be used. Except for rectifiers, chargers with
a voltage exceeding 20 percent of the line voltage must be provided
with automatic protection against reversal of current.
52. Section 111.20-1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.20-1 General requirements.
Each transformer winding must be resistant to moisture, sea
atmosphere, and oil vapor, unless special precautions are taken, such
as enclosing the winding in an enclosure with a high degree of ingress
protection.
53. Section 111.20-15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.20-15 Transformer overcurrent protection.
Each transformer must have protection against overcurrent that
meets article 450 of the NEC or IEC 92-303.
54. Section 111.25-5, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.25-5 Marking.
(a) Each motor must have a marking or nameplate that meets either
article 430-7 of the NEC or IEC 92-301 (clause 16).
* * * * *
55. Section 111.30-1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.30-1 Location and installation.
Each switchboard must meet the location and installation
requirements of section 17.1 of IEEE Std 45 or IEC 92-302, as
applicable.
56. Section 111.30-4 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.30-4 Circuit breakers removable from the front.
Circuit breakers, when installed on generator or distribution
switchboards, must be mounted or arranged in such a manner that the
circuit breaker may be removed from the front without unbolting bus or
cable connections or deenergizing the supply, unless the switchboard is
divided into sections, such that each section is capable of providing
power to maintain the vessel in a navigable condition, and meets
Sec. 111.30-24 (a) and (b).
57. Section 111.30-5 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.30-5 Construction.
(a) All low voltage and medium voltage switchboards (as ``low
voltage'' and ``medium voltage'' are defined in the standard used) must
meet--
(1) For low voltages, either section 17.2 of IEEE Std 45 or IEC 92-
302, clause 6; or
(2) For medium voltages, either section 17.3 of IEEE Std 45 or IEC
92-503, as appropriate.
(b) Each switchboard must be fitted with a dripshield unless the
switchboard is a deck-to-overhead mounted type which cannot be
subjected to leaks or falling objects.
Secs. 111.30-9, 111.30-11, and 111.30-13 [Removed]
58. Sections 111.30-9, 111.30-11, and 111.30-13 are removed.
59. Section 111.30-19 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.30-19 Buses and wiring.
(a) General. Each bus must meet the requirements of either--
(1) Section 17.11 of IEEE Std 45; or
(2) IEC 92-302 (clause 6).
(b) Wiring. Instrumentation and control wiring must be--
(1) Suitable for installation within in a switchboard enclosure and
be rated at 90 deg. C or higher;
(2) Stranded copper;
(3) No. 14 AWG (2.10 mm \2\) or larger or be ribbon cable or
similar conductor size cable recommended for use in low-power
instrumentation, monitoring, or control circuits by the equipment
manufacturer;
(4) Flame retardant meeting ANSI/UL 1581 test VW-1 or IEC 332-1;
[[Page 28279]]
(5) Extra flexible, if used on a hinged panel; and
(6) In compliance with Sec. 111.60-11.
Secs. 111-30-21 and 111.30-23 [Removed]
60. Sections 111.30-21 and 111.30-23 are removed.
61. In Sec. 111.30-24 the introductory text is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 111.30-24 Generation systems greater than 3000 kW.
Except on a non-self-propelled mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU)
and a non-self-propelled floating Outer Continental Shelf facility,
when the total installed electric power of the ship's service
generation system is more than 3000 kW, the switchboard must have the
following:
* * * * *
62. In Sec. 111.30-29, paragraphs (b) through (f) are redesignated
as paragraphs (d) through (h) and new paragraphs (b) and (c) are added
to read as follows:
Sec. 111.30-29 Emergency switchboards.
* * * * *
(b) There must be a test switch at the emergency switchboard to
simulate a failure of the normal power source and cause the emergency
loads to be supplied from the emergency power source.
(c) The emergency switchboard must be as near as practicable to the
emergency power source but not in the same space as a battery emergency
power source.
* * * * *
Sec. 111.30-31 [Removed]
63. Section 111.30-31 is removed.
64. In Sec. 111.33-3, redesignate paragraphs (a) and (b) as
paragraphs (b) and (c) and add a new paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 111.33-3 Nameplate data.
(a) Each semiconductor rectifier system must have a nameplate of
durable material affixed to the unit that meets the requirements of--
(1) Section 45.11 of IEEE Std 45; or
(2) IEC 92-304 (clause 8).
* * * * *
65. Section 111.33-5 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.33-5 Installation.
Each semiconductor rectifier system must meet the installation
requirements, as appropriate, of--
(a) Sections 45.2, 45.7, and 45.8 of IEEE Std 45; or
(b) IEC 92-304.
66. Section 111.33-11 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.33-11 Propulsion systems.
Each power semiconductor rectifier system in a propulsion system
must meet section 4/5.84 of ABS Rules or, for mobile offshore drilling
units, section 4/3.84 of ABS MODU Rules.
67. Section 111.35-1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.35-1 Electrical propulsion installations.
Each electric propulsion system installation must meet sections 4/
5.79, 4/5.81, 4/5.83, and 4/5.84 ABS Rules or, for mobile offshore
drilling units, sections 4/3.79, 4/3.81, 4/3.83, and 4/3.84 of ABS MODU
Rules.
Sec. 111.40-1 [Removed]
68. Section 111.40-1 is removed.
69. Section 111.40-5 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.40-5 Enclosure.
Each panelboard must have a noncombustible enclosure that meets
Secs. 111.01-7 and 111.01-9.
70. Section 111.40-7 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.40-7 Location.
Each panelboard must be accessible but not in a bunker or a cargo
hold, except a cargo hold on a roll-on/roll-off vessel.
71. Section 111.50-2 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 111.50-2 Systems integration.
The electrical characteristics of each overcurrent protective
device must be compatible with other devices and its coordination must
be considered in the design of the entire protective system.
Note to Sec. 111.50-2: The electrical characteristics of
overcurrent protective devices may differ between standards. The
interchangeability and compatibility of components complying with
differing standards cannot be assumed.
72. In Sec. 111.50-3, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows;
paragraph (d) is removed; paragraphs (e) through (h) are redesignated
as paragraphs (d) through (g); and, at the end of redesignated
paragraphs (e) and (g)(2), add the words ``or in IEC 92-202'':
Sec. 111.50-3 Protection of conductors.
* * * * *
(c) Fuses and circuit breakers. If the allowable current carrying
capacity of the conductor does not correspond to a standard fuse or
circuit breaker rating which meets article 240-6 of the NEC or IEC 92-
202 and the next larger standard fuse or circuit breaker rating is
used, it must not be larger than 150 percent of the current carrying
capacity of the conductor. The effect of temperature on the operation
of fuses and thermally controlled circuit breakers must be taken into
consideration.
* * * * *
73. In Sec. 111.52-1, the introductory text is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 111.52-1 General.
The available short-circuit current must be computed--
* * * * *
74. Section 111.52-5 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.52-5 Systems 1500 kilowatts or above.
Short-circuit calculations must be submitted for systems with an
aggregate generating capacity of 1500 kilowatts or more by utilizing
one of the following methods:
(a) Exact calculations using actual impedance and reactance values
of system components.
(b) Estimated calculations using the Naval Sea Systems Command
Design Data Sheet DDS 300-2.
(c) Estimated calculations using IEC 363.
(d) The estimated calculations using a commercially established
analysis procedure for utility or industrial applications.
75. Section 111.53-1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.53-1 General.
(a) Each fuse must--
(1) Meet the general provisions of article 240 of the NEC or IEC
92-202 as appropriate;
(2) Have an interrupting rating sufficient to interrupt the
asymmetrical RMS short circuit current at the point of application; and
(3) Be listed by an independent laboratory.
(b) Renewable link cartridge-type fuses must not be used.
(c) Each fuse installation must provide for ready access to test
the condition of the fuse.
76. In Sec. 111.54-1, paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) are revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 111.54-1 Circuit breakers.
(a) Each Circuit breaker must--
(1) Meet the general provision of article 240 of the NEC or IEC 92-
202, as appropriate;
(2) Meet subpart 111.55 of this part; and
(3) Have an interrupting rating sufficient to interrupt the maximum
asymmetrical short-circuit current available at the point of
application.
(b) Molded case circuit breakers must not be used in circuits
having a nominal voltage of more than 600 volts (1,000
[[Page 28280]]
volts for circuits containing circuit breaks manufactured to IEC
requirements). Each molded case circuit breaker must meet UL 489 and
its marine supplement 489 SA or IEC 947-2 Part 2, except as noted in
paragraph (e) of this section.
(c) Circuit breakers, other than the molded case type, that are for
use in one of the following systems must meet the following
requirements:
(1) An alternating current system having a nominal voltage of 600
volts or less, or 1,000 volts for IEC standard circuit breakers must
meet--
(i) IEEE C37.13;
(ii) IEEE Std 331; or
(iii) IEC 947-2, Part 2.
(2) A direct current system of 3,000 volts or less must meet ANSI
C37.14 or IEC 947-2, Part 2.
(3) An alternating current system having a nominal voltage greater
than 600 volts, or greater than 1,000 volts for IEC standard circuit
breakers must meet--
(i) ANSI/IEEE C37.04 including all referenced supplements, IEEE Std
320 including all referenced supplements, and ANSI C37.12; or
(ii) IEC 947-2, Part 2.
* * * * *
Secs. 111.55-5, 111.55-7, and 111.55-9 [Removed]
77. Sections 111.55-5, 111.55-7, and 111.55-9 are removed.
Sec. 111.57-1 (Subpart 111.57) [Removed]
78. Subpart 111.57 consisting of Sec. 111.57-1 is removed.
FR Doc. 96-13416 Electrical Engineering Requirements for Merchant Vessels
79. Section 111.59-1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.59-1 General.
Each busway must meet article 364 of the NEC.
80. Section 111.59-3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.59-3 No mechanical cooling.
A busway must not need mechanical cooling to operate within its
rating.
81. Section 111.60-1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.60-1 Cable construction and testing.
(a) Each cable must meet all the construction and identification
requirements of either IEEE Std 45, IEC 92-3, MIL-C-24640A, or MIL-C-
24643A and the respective flammability tests contained therein and be
of a cooper stranded type.
Note to paragraph (a): MIL-C-915 cable is acceptable only for
repairs and replacements in kind. MIL-C-915 cable is no longer
acceptable for alterations, modifications, conversions, or new
construction. (See Sec. 110.01-3 of this chapter).
(b) Each cable constructed to IEC 92-3 must meet the flammability
requirements of IEC 332-3, Category A.
(c) Electric cable that has a polyvinyl chloride insulation with a
nylon jacket (Type T/N) must meet the requirements for polyvinyl
chloride insulated cable in section 18 of IEEE Std 45, except--
(1) The thickness of the polyvinyl chloride insulation must meet UL
83 for type THWN wire;
(2) Each conductor must have a nylon jacket;
(3) The thickness of the nylon jacket must meet UL 83 for type THWN
wire;
(4) The material of the nylon jacket must meet ASTM D 4066-94b Type
VIII;
(5) The cable must have identification provided by a durable
printing or embossing on the cable jacket or a marker under the cable
jacket that gives, at intervals not exceeding 610 mm (24 inches), the
information required by section 18.8 of IEEE Std 45; and
(6) Type T (T/N) insulations are limited to a 75 deg. C maximum
conductor temperature rating.
(d) Electrical cable regardless of construction must meet, at a
minimum, all of the performance and marking requirements of section 18
of IEEE Std 45.
(e) Medium voltage electric cable must meet the requirements of
IEEE Std 45 and UL 1072, where applicable, for cables rated above 5,000
volts.
(f) Direct current electric cable for industrial applications only
must be constructed and labeled in accordance with IADC-DCCS-1/1991.
82. Section 111.60-2 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 111.60-2 Specialty cable for communication and RF applications.
Specialty cables that cannot pass the flammability test contained
in IEEE Std 45, IEEE Std 1202, ANSI/UL 1581 test VW-1, or IEC 332-3
Category A due to unique construction properties, such as certain
coaxial cables, must--
(a) Be installed physically separate from all other cable; and
(b) Have fire stops installed--
(1) At least every 7 meters (21.5 feet) vertically, up to a maximum
of 2 deck heights;
(2) At least every 15 meters (46 feet) horizontally;
(3) At each penetration of an A or B Class boundary;
(4) At each location where the cable enters equipment; or
(5) In a cableway that has an A-60 fire rating.
83. Section 111.60-3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.60-3 Cable Application.
(a) Cable constructed in accordance with IEEE Std 45 must meet the
cable application section 19 of IEEE Std 45. Cable constructed in
accordance with IEC 92-3 must meet the requirements of section 19 of
IEEE Std 45 except 19.6.1, 19.6.4, and 19.8. Cable constructed in
accordance with IEC 92-3 must comply with the ampacity values of IEC
92-352, Table 1.
(b) Type T/N cables must meet section 19 of IEEE Std 45 for Type T
insulation.
(c) Cables constructed in accordance with IEEE Std 45 must be
derated in accordance with Table A6, Note 6 of IEEE Std 45. Cables
constructed in accordance with IEC 92-3 must be derated in accordance
with IEC 92-352, paragraph 8. MIL-C-24640A and MIL-C-24643A cable must
be derated in accordance with MIL-HDBK-299(SH).
(d) Cables for special applications must meet section 19.6.5 of
IEEE Std 45.
84. Section 111.60-4 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.60-4 Minimum cable conductor size.
Each cable conductor must be #18 AWG (0.82 mm\2\) or larger
except--
(a) Each power and lighting cable conductor must be #14 AWG (2.10
mm\2\) or larger; and
(b) Each thermocouple, pyrometer, or instrumentation cable
conductor must be #22 AWG (0.33 mm\2\) or larger.
85. In Sec. 111.60-5, paragraph (a) is revised; paragraph (b) is
redesignated as paragraph (c); and new paragraphs (b) and (d) are added
to read as follows:
Sec. 111.60-5 Cable installation.
(a) Each cable installation must meet--
(1) Sections 20 and 22, except 20.11, of IEEE Std 45; or
(2) IEC 92-3 and paragraph 8 of IEC 92-352.
(b) Each cable installation made in accordance with paragraph 8 of
IEC 92-352 must utilize the conductor ampacity values of Table I of IEC
92-352.
* * * * *
(d) Braided cable armor or cable metallic sheath must not be used
as the grounding conductor.
86. Section 111.60-6 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 111.60-6 Fiber optic cable.
Each fiber optic cable must--
(a) Be constructed to pass the flammability test contained in IEEE
Std 45, IEEE Std 1202, ANSI/UL 1581 test VW-1, or IEC 332-3 Category A;
or
(b) Be installed in accordance with Sec. 111.60-2.
87. Section 111.60-11 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 28281]]
Sec. 111.60-11 Wire.
(a) Wire must be in an enclosure.
(b) Wire must be component insulated.
(c) Wire, other than in switchboards, must meet the requirements in
sections 19.6.4 and 19.8 of IEEE Std 45, MIL-W-76D, MIL-W-16878F, UL
44, or UL 83.
(d) Switchboard wire must meet subpart 111.30 of this part.
(e) Wire must be of the copper stranded type.
88. In Sec. 111.60-13, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.60-13 Flexible electric cord and cables.
(a) Construction and testing. Each flexible cord and cable must
meet the requirements in section 19.6.1 of IEEE Std 45, article 400 of
the NEC, NEMA WC 3, NEMA WC 8, or UL 62.
* * * * *
89. Section 111.60-17 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.60-17 Connections and terminations.
(a) In general, connections and terminations to all conductors must
retain the original electrical, mechanical, flame-retarding, and, where
necessary, fire-resisting properties of the cable. All connecting
devices must be suitable for copper stranded conductors.
(b) If twist-on type of connectors are used, the connections must
be made within an enclosure and the insulated cap of the connector must
be secured to prevent loosening due to vibration.
(c) Twist-on type of connectors may not be used for making joints
in cables, facilitating a conductor splice, or extending the length of
a circuit.
90. Section 111.60-19 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.60-19 Cable splices.
(a) A cable must not be spliced in a hazardous location, except in
intrinsically safe systems.
(b) Each cable splice must be made in accordance with section 20.11
of IEEE Std 45.
91. In Sec. 111.60-21, the last sentence is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 111.60-21 Cable insulation tests.
* * *. The insulation resistance must not be less than that in
section 46.2.1 of IEEE Std 45.
92. Section 111.60-23 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 111.60-23 Metal-clad (type MC) cable.
(a) The only metal-clad (type MC) cable permitted on board a vessel
is continuously welded corrugated metal-clad (CWCMC) cable.
(b) The cable must--
(1) Have a corrugated sheath of aluminum, or other suitable metal,
that is close-fitting, impervious, and continuously-welded and an
overall jacket of an impervious PVC or thermoset material;
(2) Be certified or listed by an independent laboratory; and
(3) Meet the requirements of UL 1569 as marine shipboard cable
(UBVZ).
(c) The cable is not allowed in--
(1) Areas or applications exposed to high vibration, festooning,
repeated flexing, excessive movement, or twisting; and
(2) Drilling function areas including, but not limited to, drill
floor, draw works, shaker areas, and mud pits of an offshore floating
drilling and production facility.
(d) The cable must be installed in accordance with article 334 of
the NEC, incorporating article 318 where referenced. The ampacity
values found in table A6 IEEE Std 45 may be used.
(e) The side wall pressure on the cable must not exceed 1,000
pounds per foot of radius.
(f) Equipment grounding conductors in the cable must be sized in
accordance with article 250-95 of the NEC. System grounding conductors
must be of a cross-sectional area not less than that of the normal
current carrying conductors of the cable. The metal sheath must be
grounded but must not be used as a required grounding conductor.
(g) On an offshore floating drilling and production facility, the
cable may be used as interconnect cable between production modules and
between fixed distribution panels within the production modules, except
that interconnection between production and drilling operations is
prohibited. Also, the cable may be used within columns, provided that
the columns are not subject to the conditions described in paragraph
(c) of this section.
(h) When the cable is used within a hazardous (classified)
location, listed terminations or fittings, appropriate for use with
CWCMC type MC cable and approved for that location, are required.
93. In Sec. 111.70-1, paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 111.70-1 General.
(a) Each motor circuit, controller, and protection must meet the
requirements of ABS Rules sections 4/5.87 through 4/5.94 and 4/5.115.6,
ABS MODU Rules sections 4/3.87 through 4/3.94 and 4/3.115.6, or IEC 92-
301, as appropriate, except the following circuits:
(1) Each steering gear motor circuit and protection must meet part
58, subpart 58.25, of this chapter.
(2) Each propulsion motor circuit and protection must meet subpart
111.35 of this part.
(b) In ungrounded three-phase alternating current systems, only two
motor-running protective devices need be utilized in any two ungrounded
conductors, except when a wye-delta or a delta-wye transformer is
utilized.
* * * * *
94. Section 111.70-3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.70-3 Motor controllers and motor control centers.
(a) General. The enclosure for each motor controller or motor
control center must meet NEMA No. ICS 2 and NEMA No. 2.3 1983 or meet
Table 5 of IEC 92-201, as appropriate, for the location where it is
installed. In addition, each enclosure in a hazardous location must
meet subpart 111.105 of this part. NEMA No. 2.4 provides guidance on
the differences between NEMA and IEC devices for motor service.
(b) Low-voltage release. Each motor controller for a fire pump,
elevator, steering gear, or auxiliary that is vital to the vessel's
propulsion system, except a motor controller for a vital propulsion
auxiliary which can be restarted from a central control station, must
have low-voltage release if automatic restart after a voltage failure
or its resumption to operation is not hazardous. If automatic restart
is hazardous, the motor controller must have low-voltage protection.
Motor controllers for other motors must not have low-voltage release
unless the starting current and the short-time sustained current of the
additional low-voltage release load is within the capacity of one
ship's service generator. Automatic sequential starting of low-voltage
release controllers is acceptable to meet this paragraph.
(c) Low-voltage protection. Each motor controller must have low-
voltage protection, except for the following motor controllers:
(1) A motor controller that has low-voltage release under paragraph
(b) of this section.
(2) A motor controller for a motor of less than 2 horsepower (1.5
kW).
(d) Identification of controllers. (1) Each motor controller and
motor control center must be marked externally with the following
information:
(i) Manufacturer's name or identification.
(ii) Voltage.
(iii) Number of phases.
(iv) Current.
(v) kW (Horsepower).
(vi) Identification of motor being controlled.
(vii) Current rating of trip setting.
[[Page 28282]]
(2) Each controller must be provided with heat durable and
permanent elementary wiring/schematic diagram of the controller located
on the door interior.
95. In Sec. 111.70-5, paragraph (a) is revised and paragraph (c) is
added to read as follows:
Sec. 111.70-5 Heater circuits.
(a) If an enclosure for a motor, master switch, or other equipment
has an electric heater inside the enclosure that is energized from a
separate circuit, the heater circuit must be disconnected from its
source of potential by a disconnect device independent of the enclosure
containing the heater. The heater disconnecting device must be adjacent
to the equipment disconnecting device. A fixed sign, warning the
operator to open both devices, must be on the enclosure of the
equipment disconnect device, except as in paragraph (b) of this
section.
* * * * *
(c) Electric heaters installed within motor controllers and
energized from a separate circuit must be disconnected in the same
manner as required by paragraph (a) of this section or by Sec. 111.70-
7(d).
96. In Sec. 111.70-7, paragraphs (d) introductory text and (d)(2)
are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.70-7 Remote control, interlock, and indicator circuits.
* * * * *
(d) Switching. In the design of a control, interlock, or indicator
circuit, all practicable steps must be taken to eliminate all but one
source of power in an enclosure. If the control functions make it
impracticable to energize a control interlock or indicator circuit from
the load side of a motor and controller disconnect device and the
voltage of the control, interlock, or indicator circuit is more than 24
volts, there must be one of the following alternative methods of
switching:
* * * * *
(2) Each conductor of a control, interlock, or indicator circuit
must be disconnected from all sources of power by a disconnect device
actuated by the opening of the controller door, or the power must first
be disconnected to allow opening of the door. The disconnect device and
its connections, including each terminal block for terminating the
vessel's wiring, must not have any electrically uninsulated or
unshielded surface. When this type of disconnect device is used for
vital auxiliary circuits, a nameplate must be affixed to the vital
auxiliary motor controller door that warns that opening the door will
trip a vital auxiliary off-line.
97. In Sec. 111.75-1, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows
and paragraph (c) and the note are removed:
Sec. 111.75-1 Lighting feeders.
(a) Passenger vessels. On a passenger vessel with fire bulkheads
forming main vertical and horizontal fire zones, the lighting
distribution system, including low location egress lighting where
installed, must be arranged so that, to the maximum extent possible, a
fire in any main vertical and horizontal fire zone does not interfere
with the lighting in any other fire zone. This requirement is met if
main and emergency feeders passing through any zone are separated both
vertically and horizontally as widely as practicable.
* * * * *
98. In Sec. 111.75-5, paragraphs (b) and (g) are removed;
paragraphs (c) through (f) are redesignated as paragraphs (b) through
(e); and newly redesignated paragraphs (b) and (d) are revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 111.75-5 Lighting branch circuits.
* * * * *
(b) Connected load. The connected load on a lighting branch circuit
must not be more than 80 percent of the rating of the overcurrent
protective device, computed on the basis of the lamp sizes.
* * * * *
(d) Overcurrent protection. Each lighting branch circuit must be
protected by an overcurrent device rated at 20 amperes or less, except
as allowed under paragraph (e) of this section.
* * * * *
99. In Sec. 111.75-15, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.75-15 Lighting requirements.
* * * * *
(c) Illumination of passenger and crew spaces. (1) Each space used
by passengers or crew must be fitted with lighting that provides for a
safe habitable and working environment under normal conditions.
(2) Sufficient illumination must be provided by the emergency
lighting source under emergency conditions to effect damage control
procedures and to provide for safe egress from each space.
* * * * *
100. Section 111.75-16 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.75-16 Lighting of survival craft and rescue boats.
(a) During preparation, launching, and recovery, each survival
craft and rescue boat, its launching appliance, and the area of water
into which it is to be launched or recovered must be adequately
illuminated by lighting supplied from the emergency power source.
(b) The arrangement of circuits must be such that the lighting for
adjacent launching stations for survival craft or rescue boats is
supplied by different branch circuits.
101. In Sec. 111.75-17, in paragraph (b), remove the word
``wheelhouse'' and add, in its place, the words ``navigating bridge'';
paragraphs (d) introductory text, (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), (e)(3), and
(e)(4) are revised to read as follows; and paragraph (f) is removed:
Sec. 111.75-17 Navigation Lights.
* * * * *
(d) Navigation lights. Each navigation light must meet the
following:
(1) Meet the technical details of the applicable navigation rules.
(2) Be certified by an independent laboratory to the requirements
of UL 1104. Portable battery powered lights need meet only the
requirements of the standard applicable to those lights.
(3) Be labeled with a label stating the following:
(i) ``MEETS __________.'' (Insert the identification name or number
of the standard under paragraph (d)(2) of this section to which the
light was type-tested.)
(ii) ``TESTED BY __________.'' (Insert the name or registered
certification mark of the independent laboratory that tested the
fixture to the standard under paragraph (d)(2) of this section).
(iii) Manufacturer's name.
(iv) Model number.
(v) Visibility of the light in nautical miles.
(vi) Date on which the fixture was type-tested.
(vii) Identification of bulb used in the compliance test.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) Be wired by a short length of heavy-duty, flexible cable to a
watertight receptacle outlet next to the light or, for permanently
mounted fixtures, by direct run of fixed cable; and
(4) If it is a double-lens, two-lamp type, have each lamp connected
to its branch circuit conductors either by an individual flexible cable
and watertight receptacle plug or, for permanently mounted fixtures, by
an individual direct run of fixed cable.
102. Section 111.75-18 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.75-18 Signaling lights.
Each self-propelled vessel over 150 gross tons when engaged on an
[[Page 28283]]
international voyage must have on board an efficient daylight signaling
lamp that may not be solely dependent upon the vessel's main source of
electrical power and that meets the following:
(a) The axial luminous intensity of the beam must be at least
60,000 candelas.
(b) The luminous intensity of the beam in every direction within an
angle of 0.7 degrees from the axial must be at least 50 percent of the
axial luminous intensity.
103. In Sec. 111.75-20, paragraph (a) is revised; in paragraph (b),
remove the word ``wheelhouse'' and add, in its place, the words
``navigating bridge''; and paragraph (e) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 111.75-20 Lighting fixtures.
(a) The construction of each lighting fixture must meet--
(1) UL 595, until May 3, 1999;
(2) UL 1570, UL 1571, or UL 1572, as applicable, including marine
supplement; or
(3) IEC 92-306.
* * * * *
(e) Non-emergency and decorative interior lighting fixtures in
environmentally-protected, non-hazardous locations need only meet the
applicable UL type-fixture standards in UL 1570 through 1574 (and
either the general section of the marine supplement or the general
section of UL 595), UL 595, or IEC 92-306. These fixtures must have
vibration clamps on fluorescent tubes longer than 103 cm (40 inches),
secure mounting of glassware, and rigid mounting.
104. Section 111.77-3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.77-3 Appliances.
All electrical appliances, including, but not limited to, cooking
equipment, dishwashers, refrigerators, and refrigerated drinking water
coolers, must meet UL safety and construction standards. Also, this
equipment must be suitably installed for the location and service
intended.
Secs. 111.77-5, 111.77-7, 111.77-9, and 111.77-11 [Removed]
105. Sections 111.77-5, 111.77-7, 111.77-9, and 111.77-11 are
removed.
106. Section 111.79-1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.79-1 Receptacle outlets; general.
(a) There must be a sufficient number of receptacle outlets in the
crew accommodations for an adequate level of habitability.
(b) There must be a sufficient number of receptacle outlets
throughout the machinery space so that any location can be reached by a
portable power cord having a length not greater than 24 meters (75
feet).
(c) Each receptacle outlet must be compatible with the voltage and
current of the circuit in which it is installed.
(d) Each receptacle outlet must be suitable for the environment in
which it is installed and constructed to the appropriate NEMA or IEC
protection standard as referenced in Sec. 111.01-9. Special attention
must be given to outlets in hazardous locations.
(e) A receptacle outlet must not have any exposed live parts with
the plug opening uncovered.
Sec. 111.79-5 [Removed]
107. Section 111.79-5 is removed.
Sec. 111.79-7 [Removed]
108. Section 111.79-7 is removed.
109. Section 111.79-13 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.79-13 Different voltages and power types.
If receptacle outlets on a vessel are supplied by different
voltages (e.g., 110 volts and 220 volts) or by different types of power
(e.g., AC and DC), each receptacle outlet must preclude the plugging of
a portable device into a receptacle outlet of an incompatible voltage
or type of power.
110. In Sec. 111.81-1, paragraphs (d) through (f) are added to read
as follows:
Sec. 111.81-1 Outlet boxes and junction boxes; general.
* * * * *
(d) Each outlet box and junction box installation must meet article
370 of the NEC, UL 50, UL 514 series, or IEC Series 92 Publications
(e.g., IEC 92-306), as appropriate.
(e) Each outlet or junction box must be securely attached to its
mounting and be affixed so as to maintain its designated degree of
protection.
(f) Each outlet and junction box must be suitable for the
environment in which it is installed and be constructed to the
appropriate NEMA or IEC standard.
Secs. 111.81-5, 111.81-7, 111.81-9, 111.81-11, 111.81-13, and 111.83-
3 [Removed]
111. Sections 111.81-5, 111.81-7, 111.81-9, 111.81-11, 111.81-13,
and 111.83-3 are removed.
112. In Sec. 111.85-1, paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.85-1 Electric oil immersion heaters.
* * * * *
(d) Either--
(1) A low-fluid-level device that opens all conductors to the
heater if the operating level drops below the manufacturer's
recommended minimum safe level; or
(2) A flow device that opens all conductors to the heater if there
is inadequate flow.
113. In Sec. 111.87-3, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.87-3 General requirements.
(a) Each electric heater must meet UL safety and construction
standards.
* * * * *
Sec. 111.89-1 (Subpart 111.89) [Removed]
114. Subpart 111.89 consisting of Sec. 111.89-1 is removed.
Sec. 111.91-1 [Amended]
115. In Sec. 111.91-1 and the section heading, remove ``control''
and add, in its place, ``power, control,'' and remove ``ANSI A17.1''
and add, in its place, ``ANSI/ASME A17.1 and A17.1A''.
Sec. 111.91-3 [Removed]
116. Section 111.91-3 is removed.
117. In Sec. 111.95-1, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.95-1 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) The provisions of this subpart supplement the requirements for
boat winches in other parts of this chapter under which vessels are
certificated and in subchapter Q, Equipment approvals.
118. Section 111.95-3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.95-3 General requirements.
(a) Each electrical component (e.g., enclosure, motor controller,
or motor) must be constructed to the appropriate NEMA or IEC degree of
protection requirement for the service and environment in which it is
installed.
(b) Each main line emergency disconnect switch, if accessible to an
unauthorized person, must have a means to lock the switch in the open-
circuit position with a padlock or its equivalent. The switch must not
lock in the closed-circuit position.
Sec. 111.95-5 [Removed]
119. Section 111.95-5 is removed.
Sec. 111.95-7 [Amended]
120. In Sec. 111.95-7, the note following paragraph (e) and figures
111.95-7(e)(1) through 111.95-7(e)(5) are removed.
Sec. 111.97-5 [Amended]
121. In Sec. 111.97-5, in paragraph (c), remove the word ``twice''
and add, in its place, the word ``once'' and remove the word ``three''
and add, in its place, the word ``two''.
[[Page 28284]]
Subpart 111.99--[Amended]
122. In subpart 111.99, in the subpart heading, remove the word
``Firescreen'' and add, in its place, the word ``Fire''.
Sec. 111.99-1 [Amended]
123. In Sec. 111.99-1, remove the words ``firescreen doors on
passenger vessels'' and add, in their place, the words ``fire door
holding and release systems, if fitted''.
124. Section 111.99-3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.99-3 Definitions.
As used in this subpart--
Central control panel means a manually-operated device on the
navigating bridge or in the fire control room for releasing one or more
fire doors;
Fire door means a door that is in a fire boundary, such as a
stairway enclosure or main vertical zone bulkhead, that is not usually
kept closed.
Fire door holding magnet means an electronmagnet for holding a fire
door open.
Local control panel means a manually-operated device next to a fire
door for releasing the door so that the fire door self-closing
mechanism may close the door.
125. Section 111.99-5 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.99-5 General.
Fire door release systems, if installed, must meet SOLAS 74,
regulation II-2/30.4.3.
126. Section 111.105-1 and its note are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.105-1 Applicability.
This subpart applies to installations in hazardous locations as
defined in the NEC and in IEC 79-0.
Note to Sec. 111.105-1: Chemicals and materials in addition to
those listed in Table 500-2 of the NEC and IEC 79-12 are listed in
subchapter O of this chapter.
127. Section 111.105-3 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 111.105-3 General requirements.
All electrical installations in hazardous locations must comply
with the general requirements of section 43 of IEEE Std 45 and either
the NEC articles 500-505 or IEC series 79 publications. When
installations are made in accordance with the NEC articles, marine
shipboard cable that complies with subpart 111.60 of this chapter may
be used instead of rigid metal conduit, if installed fittings are
approved for the specific hazardous location and the cable type.
128. Section 111.105-5 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.105-5 System integrity.
In order to maintain system integrity, each individual electrical
installation in a hazardous location must comply specifically with NEC
articles 500-505, as modified by Sec. 111.105-3, or IEC series 79
publications, but not in combination in a manner that would compromise
system integrity or safety. Hazardous location equipment must be
approved as suitable for use in the specific hazardous atmosphere in
which it is installed. The use of non-approved equipment is prohibited.
129. Section 111.105-7 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.105-7 Approved equipment.
When this subpart or the NEC states that an item of electrical
equipment must be approved or when IEC 79-0 states that an item of
electrical equipment must be tested or approved in order to comply with
IEC 79 series publications, that item must be--
(a) Listed or certified by an independent laboratory as approved
for use in the hazardous locations in which it is installed; or
(b) Purged and pressurized equipment that meets NFPA No. 496 or IEC
79-2.
130. Section 111.105-9 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.105-9 Explosionproof and flameproof equipment.
Each item of electrical equipment that is required in this subpart
to be explosionproof under the NEC classification system must be
approved as meeting UL 1203. Each item of electrical equipment that is
required in this subpart to be flameproof must be approved as meeting
IEC 79-1.
Sec. 111.105-10 [Removed]
131. Section 111.105-10 is removed.
132. Section 111.105-11 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.105-11 Intrinsically safe systems.
(a) Each system required under this subpart to be intrinsically
safe must use approved components meeting UL 913 or IEC 79-11.
(b) Each electric cable of an intrinsically safe system must--
(1) Be 50 mm (2 inches) or more from cable of non-intrinsically
safe circuits, partitioned by a grounded metal barrier from other non-
intrinsically safe electric cables, or a shielded or metallic armored
cable; and
(2) Not contain conductors for non-intrinsically safe systems.
(c) As part of plan approval, the manufacturer must provide
appropriate installation instructions and restrictions on approved
system components. Typical instructions and restrictions include
information addressing--
(1) Voltage limitations;
(2) Allowable cable parameters;
(3) Maximum length of cable permitted;
(4) Ability of system to accept passive devices;
(5) Acceptability of interconnections with conductors or other
equipment for other intrinsically safe circuits; and
(6) Information regarding any instructions or restrictions which
were a condition of approval of the system or its components.
(d) Each intrinsically safe system must meet ISA RP 12.6, except
Appendix A.1.
133. Section 111.105-15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.105-15 Additional methods of protection.
Each item of electrical equipment that is--
(a) A sand-filled apparatus must meet IEC 79-5;
(b) An oil-immersed apparatus must meet either IEC 79-6 or NEC
article 500-2;
(c) Type of protection ``e'' must meet IEC 79-7;
(d) Type of protection ``n'' must meet IEC 79-15; and
(e) Type of protection ``m'' must meet IEC 79-18.
134. Section 111.105-17 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.105-17 Wiring methods for hazardous locations.
(a) Through runs of marine shipboard cable meeting subpart 111.60
of this part are required for all hazardous locations. Additionally,
for all Division 1 (Zone 0, 1, 10, and Z) locations, cable must be
armored or metal sheathed MI type.
(b) Where conduit is installed, the applicable requirements of
either the NEC or IEC 79 must be followed.
(c) Each cable entrance into explosionproof or flameproof equipment
must be made with approved seal fittings, termination fittings, or
glands that meet the requirements of Sec. 111.105-9.
(d) Each cable entrance into Class II and Class III (Zone 10, 11,
Z, or Y) equipment must be made with dust-tight cable entrance seals
approved for the installation.
135. Section 111.105-9 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.105-19 Switches.
A switch that is explosionproof or flameproof, or that controls any
[[Page 28285]]
explosionproof or flameproof equipment, under Sec. 111.105-19 must have
a pole for each ungrounded conductor.
136. Section 111.105-21 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.105-21 Ventilation.
A ventilation duct which ventilates a hazardous location has the
classification of that location. Each fan for ventilation of a
hazardous location must be nonsparking.
Secs. 111.105-23 and 111.105-25 [Removed]
137. Sections 111.105-23 and 111.105-25 are removed.
138. In Sec. 111.105-29, the introductory text and paragraphs (a)
and (b) are redesignated as paragraphs (a), (a)(1), and (a)(2); and
paragraphs (b) and (c) are added to read as follows:
Sec. 111.105-29 Combustible liquid cargo carriers.
* * * * *
(b) If a submerged cargo pump motor is in a cargo tank, it must
meet the requirements of Sec. 111.105-31(d).
(c) Where the cargo is heated to within 15 deg.C of its flashpoint,
the cargo pumproom must meet the requirements of Sec. 111.105-31(f) and
the weather locations must meet Sec. 111.10531(1).
139. In Sec. 111.105-31, paragraphs (e) and (l) introductory text
are revised and paragraphs (l)(3), (l)(4), and (n) are added to read as
follows:
Sec. 111.105-31 Flammable or combustible cargo with a flashpoint below
60 degrees C (140 degrees F), liquid sulfur and inorganic acid
carriers.
* * * * *
(e) Cargo tanks. A cargo tank is a Class I, Division 1 (IEC Zone 0)
location which has additional electrical equipment restrictions
outlined in IEEE Std 45 and IEC 92-502. Cargo tanks must not contain
any electrical equipment except the following:
(1) Intrinsically safe equipment.
(2) Submerged cargo pumps and their associated cable.
* * * * *
(l) Weather locations. The following locations in the weather are
Class I, Division 1 (Zone 1) locations (except the open deck area on an
inorganic acid carrier which is considered a non-hazardous location)
and may have only approved intrinsically safe, explosionproof, or
purged and pressurized electrical equipment if the location is--
* * * * *
(3) Within 5 meters (16 ft) of cargo pressure/vacuum valves with an
unlimited height; or
(4) Within 10 meters (33 ft) of vent outlets for free flow of vapor
mixtures and high velocity vent outlets for the passage of large
amounts of vapor, air or inert gas mixtures during cargo loading and
ballasting or during discharging.
* * * * *
(n) Duct keel ventilation or lighting. (1) Each pipe tunnel, double
bottom or duct keel ventilation and lighting system must meet ABS Rule
section 4/5.151.7.
(2) If a fixed gas detection system is installed, it must meet the
requirements of SOLAS 74 and ABS Rules section 4/5.
140. In Sec. 111.105-32, the section heading and paragraphs (c) and
(e) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.105-32 Bulk liquefied flammable gas and ammonia carriers.
* * * * *
(c) Each submerged cargo pump motor design must receive concept
approval by the Commandant (G-MSE) and its installation must receive
plan approval by the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center.
* * * * *
(e) A submerged cargo pump motor, if installed in a cargo tank,
must meet Sec. 111.105-31(d).
* * * * *
141. Section 111.105-35 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.105-35 Vessels carrying coal.
(a) The following are Class II, Division 1, (Zone 10 or Z)
locations on a vessel that carries coal:
(1) The interior of each coal bin and hold.
(2) Each compartment that has a coal transfer point where coal is
transferred, dropped, or dumped.
(3) Each open area within 3 meters (10 ft) of a coal transfer point
where coal is dropped or dumped.
(b) Each space that has a coal conveyer on a vessel that carries
coal is a Class II, Division 2, (Zone 11 or Y) space.
(c) A space that has a coal conveyer on a vessel that carries coal
must have electrical equipment approved for Class II, Division 2, (Zone
11 or Y) hazardous locations, except watertight general emergency alarm
signals.
Sec. 111.105-37 [Amended]
142. In Sec. 111.105-37, remove the words ``NFA No. 56A'' and add,
in their place, the words ``NFPA No. 99''.
143. Section 111.105-39 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.105-39 Additional requirements for vessels carrying vehicles
with fuel in their tanks.
Each vessel that carries vehicles with fuel in their tanks must
meet the requirements of ABS Rule 4/5.157, except as follows:
(a) If the ventilation requirement of ABS Rule 4/5.157 is not met,
all installed electrical equipment must be suitable for a Class I,
Division 1; Zone 0; or Zone 1 hazardous location.
(b) If the vessel is fitted with an approved fixed gas detection
system set at 25 percent the LEL, each item of the installed electrical
equipment must meet the requirements for a Class I, Division 1; Class
I, Division 2; Zone 0; Zone 1; or Zone 2 hazardous location.
144. Section 111.105-40 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 111.105-40 Additional requirements for RO/RO vessels.
(a) Each RO/RO vessel must meet ABS Rule 4/5.160.
(b) Each item of installed electrical equipment must meet the
requirements for a Class I, Division 1; Class 1, Division 2; Zone 0;
Zone 1; or Zone 2 hazardous location when installed 460 mm (18 inches)
or more above the deck of closed cargo spaces. Electrical equipment
installed within 460 mm (18 inches) of the deck must be suitable for
either a Class 1, Division 1; Zone 0; or Zone 1 hazardous location.
(c) Where the ventilation requirement of ABS Rule 4/5.160 is not
met--
(1) All installed electrical equipment must be suitable for a Class
1, Division 1; Zone 0; or Zone 1 hazardous location; or
(2) If fitted with an approved fixed gas detection system (set at
25 percent of the LEL), each item of installed electrical equipment
must meet the requirements for either a Class I, Division 1; Class 1,
Division 2; Zone 0; Zone 1; or Zone 2 hazardous location.
145. Section 111.105-41 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.105-41 Battery rooms.
Each electrical installation in a battery room must meet subpart
111.15 of this part and IEEE Std 45.
Sec. 111.105-43 [Amended]
146. In Sec. 111.105-43, in paragraphs (a) and (b), following
``Group D'', add ``(Zone 0 or Zone 1)''.
147. Section 111.105-45 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 111.105-45 Vessels carrying agricultural products.
(a) The following areas are Class II, Division 1, (Zone 10 or Z)
locations on vessels carrying bulk agricultural
[[Page 28286]]
products that may produce dust explosion hazards:
(1) The interior of each cargo hold or bin.
(2) Areas where cargo is transferred, dropped, or dumped and
locations within 1 meter (3 feet) of the outer edge of these areas in
all directions.
(b) The following areas are Class II, Division 2, (Zone 11 or Y)
locations on vessels carrying bulk agricultural products that may
produce dust explosion hazards:
(1) All areas within 2 meters (6.5 feet) of a Division 1 (Zone 10
or Z) location in all directions except when there is an intervening
barrier, such as a bulkhead or deck.
Note to Sec. 111.105-45: Information on the dust explosion
hazards associated with the carriage of agricultural products is
contained in Coast Guard Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular
9-84 (NVIC 9-84) ``Electrical Installations in Agricultural Dust
Locations.''
148. Section 111.107-1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 111.107-1 Industrial systems.
(a) For the purpose of this subpart, an industrial system is a
system that--
(1) Is not a ship's service load, as defined in Sec. 111.10-1;
(2) Is used only for the industrial function of the vessel;
(3) Is not connected to the emergency power source; and
(4) Does not have specific requirements addressed elsewhere in this
subchapter.
(b) An industrial system that meets the applicable requirements of
the NEC must meet only the following:
(1) The switchgear standards in part 110, subpart 110.10, of this
chapter.
(2) Part 110, subpart 110.25, of this chapter--Plan Submittal.
(3) Subpart 111.01 of this part--General.
(4) Subpart 111.05 of this part--Equipment Ground, Ground
Detection, and Grounded Systems.
(5) Sections 111.12-1(b) and 111.12-1(c)--Prime movers.
(6) Subpart 111.105 of this part--Hazardous Locations.
(c) Cables that penetrate a watertight or fire boundary deck or
bulkhead must--
(1) Be installed in accordance with Sec. 111.60-5 and meet the
flammability test requirements of--
(i) Section 18.13.5 of IEEE Std 45 and IEEE Std 1202; or
(ii) IEC 332-3, Category A; or
(2) Be specialty cable installed in accordance with Sec. 111.60-2.
PART 112--EMERGENCY LIGHTING AND POWER SYSTEMS
149. The authority citation for part 112 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703; 49 CFR 1.46.
150. In Sec. 112.05-1, paragraph (a) is revised and paragraph (c)
is added to read as follows:
Sec. 112.05-1 Purpose.
(a) The purpose of this part is to ensure a dependable independent,
and dedicated emergency power source with sufficient capacity to supply
those services that are necessary for the safety of the passengers,
crew, and other persons in an emergency and those additional loads that
may be authorized under paragraph (c) of this section.
* * * * *
(c) Other loads may be authorized by the Commanding Officer, Marine
Safety Center (MSC), to be connected to the emergency source of power
to provide an increased level of safety in recognition of a unique
vessel mission or configuration. When these loads are authorized, the
emergency power source must--
(1) Be sized to supply these loads using a unity (1.0) service
factor; or
(2) Be provided with automatic load shedding that removes these
loads and operates before the emergency generator trips due to
overload. The automatic load shedding circuit breakers must be manually
reset.
151. In Sec. 112.05-5, paragraph (a), footnote 1 to table 112.05-
5(a), and paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 112.05-5 Emergency power source.
(a) The emergency power source must meet table 112.05-5(a) and have
the capacity to supply all loads that are simultaneously connected to
it, except a load on a bus-tie to the main switchboard or non-required
loads that are connected in accordance with Sec. 112.05-1(c).
Table 112.05-5(a)
* * * * *
\1\A 12-hour power supply may be especially considered for
vessels engaged regularly in voyages of short duration.
* * * * *
(c) The complete emergency installation must function at full rated
power when the vessel is upright or inclined to the maximum angle of
heel that results from the assumed damage defined in 33 CFR part 155 or
in subchapter S of this chapter for the specific vessel type or 22.5
degrees, whichever is greater; when the trim of the ship is 10 degrees,
either in the fore or aft direction, or is in any combination of angles
within those limits.
(d) The emergency power source, its associated transforming
equipment, and the emergency switchboard must be located aft of the
collision bulkhead, outside the machinery casing, and above the
uppermost continuous deck. Each compartment containing the emergency
power source, its associated transforming equipment, and the emergency
switchboard must be readily accessible from the open deck and must not
contain any other machinery not associated with the normal operation of
the emergency power source.
(e) No compartment that has an emergency power source or its vital
components may adjoin a Category A machinery space or those spaces
containing the main source of electrical power and its vital
components.
* * * * *
152. In Sec. 112.15-1, paragraphs (c), (g), (j), (k), and (p) are
revised and paragraphs (q) and (r) are added to read as follows:
Sec. 112.15-1 Temporary emergency loads.
* * * * *
(c) Lighting, including low location lighting if installed, for
passageways, stairways, and escape trunks in passenger quarters, crew
quarters, public spaces, machinery spaces, damage control lockers,
emergency equipment lockers, and work spaces sufficient to allow
passengers and crew to find their way to open decks and to survival
craft, muster stations, and embarkation stations with all watertight
doors and fire doors closed.
* * * * *
(g) Lighting for survival craft launching, including muster
stations, embarkation stations, the survival craft, its launching
appliances and the area of the water where it is to be launched.
* * * * *
(j) All shipwide communications systems necessary for the
transmittal of information during an emergency.
(k) Each fire door holding and release system.
* * * * *
(p) Each fire detection system; and gas detection system if
installed.
(q) All lighting relative to helicopter operations and landing if
installed, unless provided for by another source of power (such as
independent batteries separately charged by solar cells).
(r) Each general emergency alarm system required by SOLAS 74.
153. In Sec. 112.15-5, paragraphs (b), (e) through (g), and (i)
through (t) are revised and new paragraphs (u) and (v) are added to
read as follows:
[[Page 28287]]
Sec. 112.15-5 Final emergency loads.
* * * * *
(b) The machinery, controls, and alarms for each passenger
elevator.
* * * * *
(e) One of the fire pumps, if the emergency power source is its
source of power to meet the requirements of the subchapter under which
the vessel is certificated.
(f) Each sprinkler system, water spray extinguishing system, or
foam system pump.
(g) If necessary, the lube oil pump for each propulsion turbine and
reduction gear, propulsion diesel reduction gear, and ship's service
generator turbine which needs external lubrication.
* * * * *
(i) Each radio or global maritime distress and safety system
(GMDSs) component.
(j) Each radio direction finder, loran, radar, gyrocompass, depth
sounder, global positioning system (GPS), satellite navigation system
(SATNAV), speed log, rate-of-turn indicator and propeller pitch
indicator.
(k) Each steering gear feeder, if required by part 58, subpart
58.25, of this chapter.
(l) Each general emergency alarm flashing light required by
Sec. 113.25-10 of this chapter.
(m) Each electric blow-out-preventer control system.
(n) Any permanently installed diving equipment that is dependent
upon the vessel's or drilling unit's power.
(o) Each emergency generator starting compressor, as allowed by
Sec. 112.50-7(c)(3)(ii).
(p) Each steering gear failure alarm required by part 113, subpart
113.43, of this chapter.
(q) The ballast control system on each column-stabilized mobile
offshore drilling unit.
(r) Each vital system automation load required by part 62 of this
chapter.
(s) Motor-operated valves for each cargo oil and fuel oil system,
if the emergency power source is the source of power to meet
Sec. 56.60(d) of this chapter.
(t) Each ship's stabilizer wing, unless a separate source of
emergency power is supplied.
(u) Each indicator that shows the position of the stabilizer wings,
if the emergency power source is its emergency source of power.
(v) Each smoke extraction fan (not including smoke detector
sampling) and CO2 exhaust fan for spaces.
Sec. 112.35-7 [Amended]
154. In Sec. 112.35-7, remove the word ``wheelhouse'' and add, in
its place, the words ``navigating bridge''.
155. In Sec. 112.39-1, paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) are revised to
read as follows and paragraph (a)(4) is removed:
Sec. 112.39-1 General.
(a) * * *
(2) Have an automatic battery charger that maintains the battery in
a fully charged condition; and
(3) Not be readily portable.
Sec. 112.39-3 [Amended]
156. In Sec. 112.39-3(a), remove the words ``at least 6'' and add,
in their place, the words ``for at least 3''.
Sec. 112.43-1 [Amended]
157. In Sec. 112.43-1(b), remove ``Sec. 112.43-3'' and add, in its
place, ``Sec. 112.43-7''.
Sec. 112.43-3 [Removed]
158. Section 112.43-3 is removed.
Sec. 112.43-5 [Amended]
159. In Sec. 112.43-5, remove the words ``lifeboat and liferaft''
and add, in their place, the words ``survival craft'' and remove the
word ``wheelhouse'' and add, in its place, the words ``navigating
bridge''.
160. In Sec. 112.43-7, the section heading and paragraphs (a)
introductory text, (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(4)(ii) through (a)(4)(iv), and
(b) are revised; and paragraph (a)(4)(v) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 112.43-7 Navigating bridge distribution panel.
(a) Except as allowed in paragraph (b) of this section, the
following emergency lights must be supplied from a distribution panel
on the navigating bridge:
(1) Navigation lights not supplied by the navigation light
indicator panel.
(2) Lights for survival craft launching operations under
Sec. 111.75-16, except as allowed in Sec. 112.43-5.
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) On the navigating bridge;
(iii) In the chartroom;
(iv) In the fire control room; and
(v) For navigation equipment.
(b) On a mobile offshore drilling unit, the distribution panel
required in paragraph (a) of this section must be in the control room.
* * * * *
161. Section 112.43-11 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 112.43-11 Illumination for launching operations.
Branch circuits supplying power to lights for survival craft
launching operations must supply no other equipment and meet
Sec. 111.75-16 of this chapter.
Sec. 112.43-13 [Amended]
162. In Sec. 112.43-13(b), remove the word ``wheelhouse'' and add,
in its place, the words ``navigating bridge''.
Sec. 112.43-15 [Amended]
163. In Sec. 112.43-15, remove the word ``firescreen' and add, in
its place, the word ``fire''.
Sec. 112.43-17 [Removed]
164. Section 112.43-17 is removed.
165. The heading to subpart 112.45 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart 112.45--Visible Indicators
Sec. 112.45-5 [Removed]
165a. Section 112.45-5 is removed.
166. In Sec. 112.50-1, paragraph (d) is revised; paragraph (e) is
removed; paragraphs (f) through (k) are redesignated as paragraphs (e)
through (j); newly redesignated paragraph (f) is revised; and new
paragraph (k) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 112.50-1 General.
* * * * *
(d) The generator set must be capable of carrying its full rated
load within 45 seconds after cranking is started with the intake air,
room ambient temperature, and starting equipment at O deg.C. The
generator's prime mover must not have a starting aid to meet this
requirement, except that a thermostatically-controlled electric water-
jacket heater connected to the final emergency bus is permitted.
* * * * *
(f) The generator set must maintain proper lubrication when
inclined to the angles specified in Sec. 112.05-5(c), and must be
arranged so that it does not spill oil under a vessel roll of 30
degrees to each side of the vertical.
* * * * *
(k) Each emergency generator that is arranged to be automatically
started must be equipped with a starting device with an energy-storage
capability of at least six consecutive starts. A second, separate
source of starting energy may provide three of the required six starts.
If a second source is provided, the system need only provide three
consecutive starts.
167. In Sec. 112.50-3, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows
and paragraphs (f) and (g) are removed:
Sec. 112.50-3 Hydraulic starting.
* * * * *
(a) The hydraulic starting system must be a self-contained system
that provides the cranking torque and engine starting RPM recommended
by the engine manufacturer. The hydraulic starting
[[Page 28288]]
system must be capable of six consecutive starts, unless a second,
separate source of starting energy capable of three consecutive starts
is provided. A second, separate source of starting energy may provide
three of the required six starts. If a second source is provided, the
hydraulic system need only provide three consecutive starts.
* * * * *
168. Section 112.50-5 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 112.50-5 Electric starting.
An electric starting system must have a starting battery with
sufficient capacity for at least six consecutive starts. A second,
separate source of starting energy may provide three of the required
six starts. If a second source is provided, the electrical starting
system need only provide three consecutive starts.
169. In Sec. 112.50-7, paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) are revised to
read as follows and paragraph (d) is removed:
Sec. 112.50-7 Compressed air starting.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Has a capacity for at least six consecutive starts. A second,
separate source of starting energy may provide three of the required
consecutive starts. If a second source is provided, the compressed air
starting system need only provide three consecutive starts.
(2) Supplies no other system.
* * * * *
170. In Sec. 112.55-15, paragraph (a) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 112.55-15 Capacity of storage batteries.
(a) A storage battery for an emergency lighting and power system
must have the capacity--
(1) To close all watertight doors two times;
(2) To open all watertight doors once; and
(3) To carry the remaining emergency loads continuously for the
time prescribed in Sec. 12.05-5(a), table 112.05-5(a).
* * * * *
PART 113--COMMUNICATION AND ALARM SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT
171. The authority citation for part 113 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703; 49 CFR 1.46.
172. Section 113.05-7 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 113.05-7 Environmental tests.
Communication, alarm system, control, and monitoring equipment must
meet the environmental tests of--
(a) Table 4/11.1 of ABS Rules or the applicable ENV category of
Lloyd's Register Type approval System--Test Specification No. 1; and
(b) IEC 553 as appropriate.
173. The heading to subpart 113.10 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart 113.10--Fire and Smoke Detecting and Alarm Systems
174. Section 113.10-7 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 113.10-7 Connection boxes.
Each connection box must be constructed in accordance with NEMA 250
Type 6 or 6P or IEC IP 67 requirements.
175. In Sec. 113.10-9, in paragraph (a), following the third
sentence, add a sentence to read as follows; paragraph (c) is removed;
and paragraph (d) is redesignated as paragraph (c):
Sec. 113.10-9 Power supply.
(a) * * *. If the other source is an automatically charged battery,
the charger must be supplied from the final emergency power source. * *
*
* * * * *
176. Section 113.20-3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 113.20-3 Connection boxes.
Each connection box and each switch enclosure in an automatic
sprinkler system must be constructed in accordance with NEMA 250 Type 6
or 6P or IEC IP 67 requirements.
Subpart 113.25--[Amended]
177. In subpart 113.25, remove the words ``general alarm system''
in the subpart heading and wherever they appear and add, in their
place, the words ``general emergency alarm system''; remove the word
``wheelhouse'' wherever it appears and add, in its place, the words
``navigating bridge''; and remove the words ``bell'' and ``alarm bell''
wherever they appear and add, in their place, the words ``emergency
alarm signal''.
178. Section 113.25-6 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 113.25-6 Power supply.
(a) The power supply for the general emergency alarm system must
meet the requirements of SOLAS 74, regulations III-6.4.2 and III/50.
(b) The emergency power source for the general emergency alarm
system must meet the requirements of SOLAS 74, regulation II-1/42 or
II-1/43, as applicable.
Sec. 113.25-8 [Amended]
179. In Sec. 113.25-8, in paragraph (b), remove the word ``fuses''
and add, in its place, the words ``overcurrent protection''; in
paragraph (c), remove the words ``battery enclosure'' and add, in their
place, the words ``power supply''; in paragraph (f), remove the first
sentence; and, in paragraph (g), remove the words ``the vessel must be
divided into vertical'' and add, in their place, the words ``the
general emergency alarm system must be arranged into vertical service''
and remove ``150 feet (45.7 meters)'' and add, in its place, ``40
meters (131 feet)''.
180. In Sec. 113.25-9, paragraph (b) is revised and paragraph (c)
is added to read as follows:
Sec. 113.25-9 Location of general emergency alarm signals.
* * * * *
(b) Be audible in the spaces identified in paragraph (a) of this
section with all normally closed doors and accesses closed; and
(c) Be installed in cabins without loudspeaker installation. Other
audible devices, such as electronic alarm transducers, are permitted.
81. In Sec. 113.25-10, the introductory text and paragraphs (a),
(b), and (c) are redesignated as paragraphs (a), (a)(1), (a)(2), and
(a)(3); redesignated paragraph (a)(3) is revised; and new paragraph (b)
is added to read as follows:
Sec. 113.25-10 Location of flashing red lights.
(a) * * *
(3) Is supplied by the general emergency alarm system power supply
or the vessel emergency power source through a relay that is operated
by the general emergency alarm system.
(b) A flashing red light must be installed so that it is visible in
the cargo pump rooms of vessels that carry combustible liquid cargoes.
The installation must be in accordance with the requirements of part
111, subpart 111.105, of this chapter.
82. Section 113.25-11 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 113.25-11 Contact makers.
Each contact maker must--
(a) Have normally open contacts and be constructed in accordance
with NEMA 250 Type 6 or 6P or IEC IP 67 requirements;
(b) Have a switch handle that can be maintained in the ``on''
position;
(c) Have the ``off'' and ``on'' positions of the operating handle
permanently marked; and
(d) Have an inductive load rating not less than the connected load
or, on large vessels, have auxiliary devices to interrupt the load
current.
[[Page 28289]]
183. Section 113.25-12 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 113.25-12 Alarm signals.
(a) Each general emergency alarm signal must be an electrically-
operated bell, klaxon, or other warning device capable of producing a
signal or tone distinct from any other audible signal on the vessel.
(b) Electronic devices used to produce the general emergency alarm
signal must meet the requirements of subpart 113.50 of this part.
(c) The minimum sound pressure levels for the emergency alarm tone
in interior and exterior spaces must be 80 dB(A) and at least 10 dB(A)
above ambient noise levels existing during normal equipment operation
with the vessel underway in moderate weather.
184. Section 113.25-16 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 113.25-16 Overcurrent protection.
(a) Each fuse in a general emergency alarm system must meet the
requirements of part 111, subpart 111.53, of this chapter.
(b) Each overcurrent protection device must cause as wide a
differential as possible between the rating of the branch circuit
overcurrent protection device and that of the feeder overcurrent
protection device.
(c) The capacity of the feeder overcurrent device must be as near
practicable to 200 percent of the load supplied. The capacity of a
branch circuit overcurrent device must not be higher than 50 percent of
the capacity of the feeder overcurrent device.
Sec. 113.25-30 [Amended]
185. In Sec. 113.25-30, in the note to paragraph (a), before the
word ``bridge'', add the word ``navigating''.
186. The heading to subpart 113.30 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart 113.30--Internal Communications
187. Section 113.30-3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 113.30-3 Means of communications.
(a) An emergency means of communication required by this subpart
must--
(1) Be comprised of either fixed or portable equipment; and
(2) Provide common talking means of two-way voice communication and
calling among the navigating bridge, emergency control stations, muster
stations, embarkation stations, and other strategic positions listed in
Sec. 113.30-5.
(b) The means of communication and calling must be a sound-powered
telephone or other reliable voice communication method and must be
independent of the vessel's electrical system.
188. In Sec. 113.30-5, in paragraphs (a) through (c), (e), and (f),
remove ``wheelhouse'' and add, in its place, ``navigating bridge'';
revise paragraphs (a) introductory text, (d), (g), and (h); and add
paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 113.30-5 Requirements.
(a) Communication. Each vessel must have a means of communication
among the following:
* * * * *
(d) Emergency lockers. If the emergency equipment lockers or spaces
used by the emergency squad are not next to the navigating bridge or,
on a mobile offshore drilling unit, next to the control room, there
must be a means of communication between the navigating bridge or
control room and the emergency equipment lockers or spaces.
* * * * *
(g) Lookout. Each vessel must have a means of communication between
the navigating bridge and the bow or forward lookout station unless
direct voice communication is possible.
(h) Engineroom local control station. Each self-propelled vessel
equipped with control from the navigating bridge must have a means of
communication between the local station for the control of the speed or
direction of thrust of the propulsion machinery and the engine control
room, unless an engine order telegraph is installed in accordance with
Sec. 113.35-3. Each communication station at a local control station
must--
(1) Not be on the same circuit as any other station required by
this section; and
(2) Provide the capability of reliable voice communication when the
vessel is underway.
(i) Mobile offshore drilling units. Each non-self-propelled mobile
offshore drilling unit must have a means of communication among the
control room, drill floor, machinery space, and silicon controlled
rectifier (SCR) room (if installed). Each column-stabilized mobile
offshore drilling unit must have a means of communication between the
ballast control room and the spaces that contain the ballast pumps and
valves.
Sec. 113.30-10 [Removed]
189. Section 113.30-10 is removed.
190. Section 113.30-20 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 113.30-20 General requirements.
(a) The communications stations listed in Sec. 113.30-5(a) through
(d), (f), (g), and (i) and other communications stations for the
operation of the vessel, such as the captain's and chief engineer's
offices and staterooms, emergency power room, carbon dioxide (or other
extinguishing agent) control room, and firepump room, must not be on
the same circuit as communications stations installed to meet the
requirements of Secs. 113.30-5(e) and 113.30-5(h).
(b) If a communications station is in the weather and on the same
circuit as other required stations, there must be a cut-out switch on
the navigating bridge that can isolate this station from the rest of
the stations, unless the system possesses other effective means of
station isolation during a fault condition.
(c) Jack boxes or headsets must not be on a communications system
that includes any station required by this subpart, except for a
station installed to meet Secs. 113.30-5(h) or 113.30-25(d).
191. Section 113.30-25 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 113.30-25 Detailed requirements.
(a) Each sound-powered telephone station must include a
permanently-wired handset with a push-to-talk button and a hanger for
the handset, except those stations detailed in paragraph (d) of this
section. The hanger must be constructed so that it holds the handset
away from the bulkhead and so that the handset will not be dislodged by
the motion of the vessel.
(b) Each voice communication station device in the weather must be
in a proper enclosure as required in Sec. 111.01-9 of this chapter. The
audible signal device must be outside the station enclosure.
(c) Each station in a navigating bridge or a machinery space must
be in an enclosure meeting at least NEMA 250 Type 2 or IEC IP 32
requirements.
(d) In a noise location, such as an engine room, there must be a
booth or other equipment to permit reliable voice communication during
vessel operation.
(e) In a location where the voice communication station audible
signal device cannot be heard throughout the space, there must be an
additional audible signal device or visual device, such as a light,
which is energized from the vessel's electric system.
(f) If two or more voice communication stations are near each
other, there must be a means that indicates the station called.
(g) Each voice communication talking circuit must be electrically
independent of each calling circuit. A short circuit, open circuit, or
ground on either side of a calling circuit must not affect a talking
[[Page 28290]]
circuit. Circuits must be insulated from ground.
(h) Each connection box must meet at least NEMA 250 Type 6 or 6P or
IP 67 requirements.
(i) Voice communication cables must be run as close to the fore and
aft centerline of the vessel as practicable. The cable must not run
through high fire-risk spaces, such as machinery rooms and galleys,
unless the cable meets the requirements of IEC 331.
192. In Sec. 113.35-3, remove the word ``wheelhouse'' wherever it
appears and add, in its place, the words ``navigating bridge'' and
revise paragraph (e)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 113.35-3 General requirements.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) Reliable voice communication and calling that meets the
requirements of Sec. 113.30-5(h) is not provided.
* * * * *
193. In Sec. 113.35-5, the section heading and paragraphs (b)
through (e) are revised to read as follows and paragraphs (f) through
(g) are removed:
Sec. 113.35-5 Electric engine order telegraph systems.
* * * * *
(b) Each engineroom indicator must be capable of acknowledgment of
orders.
(c) There must be an audible signal at each instrument. The signal
at both locations must sound continuously when the transmitter and the
indicator do not show the same order.
(d) Each telegraph instrument must meet the protection requirements
of Sec. 111.01-9 of this chapter.
(e) Each system must have an alarm which--
(1) Automatically sounds and visually signals a loss of power to
the system;
(2) Is on the navigating bridge; and
(3) Has a means to reduce the audible signal from 100 percent to
not less than 50 percent.
Sec. 113.35-7 [Removed]
194. Section 113.35-7 is removed.
195. In Sec. 113.35-9, the section heading is revised; in paragraph
(a) following ``other'', add ``, as''; paragraph (b) is revised to read
as follows; and paragraphs (c) through (g) are removed:
Sec. 113.35-9 Mechanical engine order telegraph systems.
* * * * *
(b) Each transmitter and each indicator must have an audible signal
device to indicate, in the case of an indicator, the receipt of an
order, and in the case of a transmitter, the acknowledgment of an
order. The audible signal device must not be dependent upon any source
of power for operation other than that of the movement of the
transmitter or indicator handle.
Sec. 113.35-11 [Removed]
196. Section 113.35-11 is removed.
Sec. 113.35-17 [Amended]
197. In Sec. 113.35-17, remove the word ``pilothouse'' wherever it
appears and add, in its place, the words ``navigating bridge''.
Sec. 113.35-19 [Amended and Redesignated as Sec. 113.35-7]
198. In Sec. 113.35-19, in paragraph (a), remove the words ``in the
wheelhouse, the wings of the navigating bridge, or the top of the
wheelhouse'' and add, in their place, the words ``on or on top of, or
on the wings of, the navigating bridge''; in paragraphs (c) and (d),
remove the word ``wheelhouse'' and, in its place, add the words
``navigating bridge''; and redesignate this section as Sec. 113.35-7.
Sec. 113.37-5 [Amended]
199. In Sec. 113.37-5, remove the words ``in the wheelhouse''
wherever they appear and add, in their place, the words ``on the
navigating bridge''.
200. In Sec. 113.37-10, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows
and paragraphs (c) and (d) are removed:
Sec. 113.37-10 Detailed requirements.
* * * * *
(b) Each electric component or its enclosure must meet NEMA 250
Type 4 or 4X or IEC IP 56 requirements.
201. In Sec. 113.40-10, in paragraph (a), the second sentence is
revised and a third sentence is added; paragraph (b) is revised; and
paragraphs (c) through (f) are removed as follows:
Sec. 113.40-10 Detailed requirements.
(a) * * *. This system must be independent of all other systems and
not receive power or signal from the steering gear control, autopilot,
or dynamic positioning systems. However, the indicator may be
physically located on a control console, such as an integrated bridge
system, if it is readily visible by the helmsman at the steering stand.
(b) Each electric component or its enclosure must meet NEMA 250
Type 6 or 6P or IEC IP 67 requirements.
202. The heading to subpart 113.50 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart 113.50--Public Address Systems
203. Sections 113.50-1 and 113.50-5 are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 113.50-1 Applicability.
This subpart applies to each vessel required to have a general
emergency alarm system in accordance with Sec. 113.25-1.
Sec. 113.50-5 General requirements.
(a) Each vessel must have an amplifier-type announcing system that
will supplement the general emergency alarm. This system must provide
for the transmission of orders and information throughout the vessel by
means of microphones and loudspeakers connected through an amplifier.
If a decentralized-type system is used, its overall performance must
not be affected by the failure of a single call station. This system
may be combined with the general emergency alarm and fire detecting and
alarm systems. The public address system must be protected against
unauthorized use.
(b) The announcing station must be located adjacent to the general
emergency alarm contact maker on the navigating bridge.
(c) There must be a means to silence all other audio distribution
systems at the announcing station.
(d) The system may be arranged to allow broadcasting separately to,
or to any combination of, various areas on the vessel. If the amplifier
system is used for the general emergency alarm required by subpart
113.25 of this part, the operation of a general emergency alarm contact
maker must activate all speakers in the system, except that a separate
crew alarm may be used as allowed by Sec. 113.25-5(e)(2).
(e) The amplifier, and any device used to produce the general
emergency alarm signal, must be provided in duplicate.
(f) The power supply must be in accordance with the requirements of
Secs. 113.25-6 and 113.25-7.
(g) Each electrical subsystem in a weather location must be
watertight or in a watertight enclosure (NEMA 250 Type 6 or 6P or IEC
IP 67).
204. Section 113.50-10 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 113.50-10 Additional requirements for passenger vessels.
Each passenger vessel must have a public address system capable of
broadcasting separately or collectively to the following stations:
(a) Survival craft stations, port.
(b) Survival craft stations, starboard.
(c) Survival craft embarkation stations, port.
[[Page 28291]]
(d) Survival craft embarkation stations, starboard.
(e) Public spaces used for passenger assembly points.
(f) Crew quarters.
(g) Accommodation spaces and service spaces.
205. In Sec. 113.50-15, the section heading and paragraphs (a)
through (d) are revised to read as follows and paragraph (e) and table
113.50-15 are removed:
Sec. 113.50-15 Loudspeakers.
(a) Loudspeakers must be located to eliminate feedback or other
interference which would degrade communications.
(b) Loudspeakers must be located to provide intelligible and
audible one-way communication throughout the vessel. Weatherdeck
loudspeakers must be watertight and suitably protected from the effects
of the wind and seas.
(c) There must be a sufficient number of loudspeakers throughout
the vessel. The public address system must be installed with regard to
acoustically marginal conditions and not require any action from the
addressee. With the vessel underway in normal conditions, the minimum
sound pressure levels for broadcasting emergency announcements must
be--
(1) In interior spaces, 75 dB(A) or, if the background noise level
exceeds 75 dB(A), then at least 20 dB(A) above maximum background noise
level; and
(2) In exterior spaces, 80 dB(A) or, if the background noise level
exceeds 80 dB(A), then at least 15 dB(A) above maximum background noise
level.
(d) Loudspeakers must not have external volume controls or local
cutout switches.
206. Section 113.50-20 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 113.50-20 Distribution of cable runs.
(a) Each system must have a feeder distribution panel to divide the
system into the necessary number of zone feeders. Where, because of the
arrangement of the vessel, only one zone feeder is necessary, a branch
circuit distribution panel must be used.
(b) The feeder distribution panel must be in an enclosed space next
to the public address system power supply.
(c) Each system must have at least one feeder for each vertical
fire zone.
(d) Each system must have one or more branch circuit distribution
panels for each zone feeder, with at least one branch circuit for each
deck level. The distribution panel must be above the uppermost
continuous deck, in the zone served, and there must be no disconnect
switches for the branch circuits.
(e) A branch circuit must not supply speakers on more than one deck
level, except for a single branch circuit supplying all levels of a
single space if all other requirements of this section are met.
(f) On a vessel not divided into vertical fire zones by main
vertical fire bulkheads, the vessel must be divided into vertical zones
not more than 40 meters (131 feet) long. There must be a feeder for
each of these zones.
(g) Feeders and branch circuit cables must be in passageways. They
must not be in staterooms, lockers, galleys, or machinery spaces,
unless it is necessary to supply public address speakers in those
spaces.
Sec. 113.50-25 [Removed]
207. Section 113.50-25 is removed.
Sec. 113.65-5 [Amended]
208. In Sec. 113.65-5, remove the words ``Section 37.25'' and add,
in their place, the words ``section 37.19'' and remove the note to the
section.
Sec. 113.70-5 (Subpart 113.70) [Removed]
209. Subpart 113.70 consisting of Sec. 113.70-5 is removed.
PART 161--ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
210. The authority citation for part 161 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 4302; E.O. 12234, 45 FR 58801,
3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR 1.46.
211. Section 161.002-1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 161.002-1 Incorporation by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subpart
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that
specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the Coast Guard must
publish notice of change in the Federal Register; and the material must
be available to the public. All approved material is available for
inspection at the Office of the Federal Register. 800 North Capitol
Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC, and at the U.S. Coast Guard, (G-
MSE), 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, and is
available from the sources indicated in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) The material approved for incorporation by reference in this
subpart and the sections affected are as follows:
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS)
American Bureau of Shipping, Two World Trade Center, 106th
Floor, New York, NY 10048.
Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels, 1995--161.002-
4(b).
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor
Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
ASTM B 117-95, Standard Practice for Operating Salt Spray (Fog)
Apparatus, 1996--161.002-4(b).
Factory Mutual Engineering and Research (FMER)
Factory Mutual Engineering and Research, ATTN: Librarian, 1151
Boston-Providence Turnpike, Norwood, MA 02062.
Class Number 3150: Audible Signal Devices, December, 1974--
161.002-4(b).
Class Number 3210: Thermostats for Automatic Fire Detection,
July, 1978--161.002-4(b).
Class Number 3230-3250: Smoke Actuated Detectors for Automatic
Fire Alarm Signaling, February, 1976--161.002-4(b).
Class Number 3260: Flame Radiation Detectors for Automatic Fire
Alarm Signaling, September, 1994--161.002-4(b).
Class Number 3820: Electrical Utilization Equipment, September,
1979--161.002-4(b).
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)
International Electrotechnical Commission, 1, Rue de Varembe,
Geneva, Switzerland.
IEC 533, Electromagnetic Compatibility of Electrical and
Electronic Installations in Ships, 1977--161.002-4(b).
International Maritime Organization (IMO)
International Maritime Organization, 4 Albert Embankment, London
SE1 7SR, England.
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974
(SOLAS 74) Consolidated Edition (Including 1992 Amendments to SOLAS
74, and 1994 Amendments to SOLAS 74), 1992--161.002-4(b).
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park,
Quincy, MA 02269.
NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm Code, 1993--161.002-4(b).
Lloyd's Register of Shipping (LR)
Lloyd's Register of Shipping, ATTN: Publications, 17 Battery
Place, New York, NY 10004-1195.
LR Type Approval System; Test Specification Number 1, 1990--
161.002-4(b).
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL)
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., ATTN: Publication Stock, 333
Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096.
UL 38, Standard for Manually Actuated Signaling Boxes for Use
with Fire-Protective Signaling Systems, 1994--161.002-4(b).
UL 268, Standard for Smoke Detectors for Fire Protective
Signaling Systems, 1989 (including revisions through June 1994)--
161.002-4(b).
UL 521, Standard for Heat Detectors for Fire Protective
Signaling Systems, 1993 (including revisions through October 1994)--
161.002-4(b).
UL 864, Standard for Control Units for Fire-Protective Signaling
Systems, 1991
[[Page 28292]]
(including revisions through May 1994)--161.002-4(b).
Sec. 161.002-2 [Amended]
212. In Sec. 161.002-2, in paragraph (a), remove the words ``smoke
detector systems'' and add, in their place, the words ``sample
extraction smoke detection systems''; in paragraphs (a) and (b), remove
the words ``fire detecting'' and add, in their place, the words ``fire
and smoke detecting''; in paragraph (b), following ``fire detectors,'',
add ``smoke detectors,''; in paragraphs (b) and (c), remove the words
``vibrating bells'' and add, in their place, the words ``audible and
visual alarms distinct in both respects from the alarms of any other
system not indicating fire''; and, in paragraph (d), remove the words
``smoke detector systems'' and add, in their place, the words ``sample
extraction smoke detection systems''.
Sec. 161.002-3 [Amended]
213. In Sec. 161.002-3, paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) are removed.
214. In Sec. 161.002-4, paragraph (b) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 161.002-4 General requirements.
* * * * *
(b) Standards. (1) All fire-protective systems must be designed,
constructed, tested, marked, and installed according to the applicable
standards under Sec. 161.002-1 and subchapter J (Electrical
Engineering) of this chapter.
(2) All systems must be listed or certified as meeting these
standards by an independent laboratory that is accepted by the
Commandant under part 159 of this chapter for the testing and listing
or certification of fire detection equipment and systems.
(3) All parts of the system must pass the environmental tests for
control and monitoring equipment in either ABS Rules Table 4/11.1 or
pass the Category ENV3 tests of Lloyd's Register Type Approval System,
Test Specification Number 1, as appropriate.
(4) Those parts of the system that are to be installed in locations
requiring exceptional degrees of protection must also pass the salt
spray (mist) test in either ABS Rules Table 4/11.1; Category ENV3 of
Lloyd's Register Type Approval System, Test Specification No. 1; or
ASTM B-117 with results as described in corrosion-resistant finish in
Sec. 110.15-1 of this chapter.
Secs. 161.002-5, 161.002-6, and 161.002-7 [Removed]
215. Sections 161.002-5, 161.002-6, and 161.002-7 are removed.
Sec. 161.002-8 [Amended]
216. In Sec. 161.002-8, paragraph (b) is removed.
217. In Sec. 161.002-10, in paragraph (b), revise the paragraph
heading and paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows; in paragraph (b)(2),
remove the word ``signal'' wherever it appears and add, in its place,
the word ``alarm''; in paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4), (c)(3), (d), (e)
paragraph heading, and (e)(2) through (e)(4), remove the words ``alarm
bell'', ``alarm signal'', ``audible signal'', and ``bell'' wherever
they appear and add, in their place, the words ``audible alarm''; in
paragraph (e)(1), remove the words ``audible trouble alarm bell or
buzzer'' and, in their place, add the words ``audible alarm''; and
paragraphs (i) through (m) are removed:
Sec. 161.002-10 Automatic fire detecting system control unit.
* * * * *
(b) Fire alarms--(1) General. The operation of a fire detecting and
alarm system must cause automatically--
(i) The sounding of a vibrating type fire bell with a gong diameter
not smaller than 15 cm (6 inches) or other audible alarm that has an
equivalent sound level and that is mounted at the control unit and at
the remote annunicator panel, when provided;
(ii) The sounding of a vibrating type fire bell with a gong
diameter not smaller than 20 cm (8 inches) or other audible alarm that
has an equivalent sound level and that is located in the engine room;
and
(iii) An indication of the fire detecting zone from which the
signal originated, visible at the control unit and at the remote
annunicator panel, when provided;
* * * * *
Secs. 161.002-11 and 161.002-13 [Removed]
218. Sections 161.002-11 and 161.002-13 are removed.
Sec. 161.002-12 [Amended]
218a. In Sec. 161.002-12(a), remove the words ``signaling devices''
and add, in their place, the word ``alarms''.
219. Section 161.002-15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 161.002-15 Sample extraction smoke detection systems.
The smoke detecting system must consist of a means for continuously
exhausting an air sample from the protected spaces and testing the air
for contamination with smoke, together with visual and audible alarms
for indicating the presence of smoke.
Sec. 161.002-16 [Removed]
220. Section 161.002-16 is removed.
221. Section 161.002-17 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 161.002-17 Equivalents.
The Commandant may approve any arrangement, fitting, appliance,
apparatus, equipment, calculation, information, or test that provides a
level of safety equivalent to that established by specific provisions
of this subpart. Requests for approval must be submitted to Commandant
(G-MSE). If necessary, the Commandant may require engineering
evaluations and tests to demonstrate the equivalence of the substitute.
222. Section 161.002-18 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 161.002-18 Method of application for type approval.
(a) The manufacturer must submit the following material to
Commandant (G-MSE), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street
SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001:
(1) A formal written request that the system be reviewed for
approval.
(2) Three copies of the system's instruction manual, including
information concerning installation, programming, operation, and
troubleshooting.
(3) One copy of the complete test report generated by an
independent laboratory accepted by the Commandant under part 159 of
this chapter for the testing and listing or certification of fire-
protective systems. A current list of these facilities may be obtained
from the address in this section.
(4) Three copies of a list prepared by the manufacturer that
contains the name, model number, and function of each major component
and accessory, such as the main control cabinet, remote annunicator
cabinet, detector, zone card, isolator, central processing unit, zener
barrier, special purpose module, or power supply. This list must be
identified by the following information assigned by the manufacturer:
(i) A document number.
(ii) A revision number (the original submission being revision
number 0).
(iii) The date that the manufacturer created or revised the list.
(b) The Coast Guard distributes a copy of the approved instruction
manual to the manufacturer and to the Coast Guard Marine Safety Center
(MSC).
(c) The manufacturer shall maintain an account of the equipment
offered for approval. The list identification information in paragraphs
(a)(4)(i) through (a)(4)(iii) of this section appears on the
Certificate of Approval and indicates the official compilation of
components for the approved system. If
[[Page 28293]]
the manufacturer seeks to apply subsequently for the approval of a
revision (because of, for example, additional accessories becoming
available, replacements to obsolete components, or a change in
materials or standards of safety), changes to the approved list must be
submitted for review and approval.
(d) To apply for a revision, the manufacturer must submit--
(1) A written request under paragraph (a) of this section;
(2) An updated list under paragraph (b) of this section; and
(3) A report by an independent laboratory accepted by the
Commandant under part 159 of this chapter for the testing and listing
or certification of fire-protective systems indicating compliance with
the standards and compatibility with the system.
(e) If the Coast Guard approves the system or a revision to a
system, it issues a certificate, normally valid for a 5-year term,
containing the information in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (a)(4)(iii)
of this section.
Secs. 161.004-2--161.004-7 (Subpart 161.004) [Removed]
223. Subpart 161.004, consisting of Secs. 161.004-2 through
161.004-7, is removed.
Dated: May 22, 1996.
J.C. Card,
Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, Chief, Marine Safety and
Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 96-13416 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.