issue-1996-06-17•Federal Register final rules — 1996-06-17
Federal Register final rules — 1996-06-17
issue-1996-06-17Federal Register final rules — 1996-06-17Regulation
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. 96-15350 Apricots Grown in Designated Counties in Washington; Temporary Suspension of Grade Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30495-30497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15350]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 922
[Docket No. FV96-922-1IFR]
Apricots Grown in Designated Counties in Washington; Temporary
Suspension of Grade Requirements
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Interim final rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This interim final rule suspends, for the 1996 season only,
the minimum grade requirements (Washington No. 1) currently in effect
for fresh shipments of apricots grown in Washington. This change was
recommended by the Washington Apricot Marketing Committee (committee),
which works with the Department of Agriculture (Department) in
administering the marketing order covering apricots grown in designated
counties in Washington. This rule will enable handlers to ship more
fruit in fresh market channels, taking into consideration the damage
caused to Washington apricots by freezing temperatures during the
growing season. This change is expected to increase returns to
producers and to make more fresh apricots available to consumers.
DATES: This interim final rule is effective June 15, 1996. Comments
which are received by July 17, 1996, will be considered prior to the
issuance of a final rule.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this interim final rule. Comments must be sent in triplicate
to the Docket Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, Room
2525, South Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, Fax:
(202) 720-5698. All comments should reference the docket number and the
date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be
made available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk
during regular business hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teresa L. Hutchinson, Northwest
Marketing Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, 1220
SW Third Avenue, Room 369, Portland, OR 97204; telephone: (503) 326-
2724; or Britthany E. Beadle, Marketing Order Administration Branch,
Fruit and Vegetable Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Room 2523-S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC
20090-6456; telephone: (202) 720-5331.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing
Agreement No. 132 and Marketing Order No. 922 [7 CFR Part 922], both as
amended, regulating the handling of apricots grown in designated
counties in Washington, hereinafter referred to as the ``order.'' The
order is authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of
1937, as amended [7 U.S.C. 601-674], hereinafter referred to as the
``act.''
The Department is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive
Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, 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. A handler is afforded the opportunity for
[[Page 30496]]
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 action 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 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 75 handlers of Washington apricots who are
subject to regulation under the order and approximately 400 producers
in the regulated area. Small agricultural service firms, which includes
handlers of Washington apricots, have been defined by the Small
Business Administration [13 CFR 121.601] as those having annual
receipts of less than $5,000,000, and small agricultural producers are
defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $500,000. The
majority of Washington apricot handlers and producers may be classified
as small entities.
Section 922.52 of the order authorizes the issuance of grade, size,
quality, maturity, container markings, pack, and container regulations
for any variety or varieties of apricots grown in any district or
districts of the production area. Section 922.53 further authorizes the
modification, suspension, or termination of regulations issued under
Sec. 922.52. Section 922.55 provides that whenever apricots are
regulated pursuant to Secs. 922.52 or 922.53, such apricots must be
inspected by the Federal-State Inspection Service, and certified as
meeting the applicable requirements of such regulations.
Minimum grade, maturity, color, and size requirements for
Washington apricots regulated under the order are specified in
Sec. 922.321 Apricot Regulation 21 [7 CFR 922.321]. Section 922.321
provides that no handler shall handle any container of apricots unless
such apricots grade not less than Washington No. 1, except for
shipments subject to exemption under the regulation. In addition, the
section provides that the Moorpark variety in open containers must be
generally well matured. Also, that section provides that, with the
exception of exempt shipments, apricots must be at least reasonably
uniform in color, and be at least 1\5/8\ inches in diameter, except for
the Blenheim, Blenril, and Tilton varieties which must be at least 1\1/
4\ inches in diameter. Individual shipments of apricots are exempt from
these requirements if sold for home use only, do not exceed 500 pounds
net weight, and containers are stamped or marked with the words ``not
for resale.''
This rule amends paragraph (a)(1) of Sec. 922.321 by temporarily
suspending the minimum grade requirements for fresh shipments of
apricots for the 1996 season only. The grade requirements currently
specified in Sec. 922.321 will resume April 1, 1997, for 1997 and
future seasons.
At its May 16, 1996, meeting, the committee unanimously recommended
suspending the grade requirements for the 1996 season. The committee
requested that this suspension be effective by June 15, the date
shipments of the 1996 Washington apricot crop are expected to begin.
The committee meets prior to and during each season to consider
recommendations for modification, suspension, or termination of the
regulatory requirements for Washington apricots which have been issued
on a continuing basis. Committee meetings are open to the public and
interested persons may express their views at these meetings. The
Department reviews committee recommendations and information submitted
by the committee and other available information, and determines
whether modification, suspension, or termination of the regulatory
requirements would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the act.
The committee reports that the apricot crop was severely damaged by
several freezes last winter and early this spring. The severe weather
conditions resulted in a high percentage of damage from russeting, scab
spots, and other grade defects making it difficult for apricots to meet
the minimum grade requirements of Washington No. 1. The committee
estimates that only 2,300 tons of apricots will be shipped fresh during
the 1996 season, even with the grade requirements suspended as
requested. This amount is 52 percent of last season's fresh shipments
of 4,452 tons and 46 percent of the five-year average of 4,965 tons.
This rule suspends only the grade requirements specified in
Sec. 922.321. Thus, the color and minimum size requirements for all
varieties and the well matured requirements for the Moorpark variety
will remain unchanged.
This rule will enable handlers to ship a larger portion of their
crop to the fresh market this season, taking into account the abnormal
growing conditions, than they would be allowed if the minimum grade
requirements were not suspended. Suspension of the grade requirements
for Washington apricots is intended to increase fresh shipments to meet
consumer needs and improve returns to producers. It is the Department's
view that the impact of this action upon producers and handlers, both
large and small, will be beneficial because it will enable handlers to
provide apricots consistent with 1996 season growing conditions.
Therefore, the AMS has determined that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
After consideration of all relevent material presented, the
information and recommendation submitted by the committee, and other
available information, it is found that suspending the minimum grade
requirements, as set forth in this rule, 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 and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date
of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register
because: (1) This rule suspends the current grade requirements for
Washington apricots; (2) this rule was unanimously recommended by the
committee at an open public meeting and all interested persons had an
opportunity to express their views and provide input; (3) Washington
apricot handlers are aware of this rule and need no additional time to
comply with the relaxed requirements; (4) this rule should be in effect
by June 15, 1996, the date 1996 season shipments of the Washington
apricot crop are expected to begin, and this action should apply to the
entire season's shipments; and (5) this rule provides a 30-day comment
period, and any comments received will be considered prior to
finalization of this rule.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 922
Marketing agreements, Apricots, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
[[Page 30497]]
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR Part 922 is
amended as follows:
PART 922--APRICOTS GROWN IN DESIGNATED COUNTIES IN WASHINGTON
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR Part 922 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
2. Section 922.321 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read
as follows:
Sec. 922.321 Apricot Regulation 21.
(a) * * *
(1) Minimum grade and maturity requirements. Such apricots that
grade not less than Washington No. 1 and are at least reasonably
uniform in color: Provided, That the grade requirement shall not apply
to apricots handled from June 15, 1996, through March 31, 1997;
Provided further, That such apricots of the Moorpark variety in open
containers shall be generally well matured; and
* * * * *
Dated: June 12, 1996.
Sharon Bomer Lauritsen,
Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-15350 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15333 Amendment to Class E Airspace; Topeka, KS; Kingman, KS; Hutchinson, KS; and Wahoo, NE
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30507-30508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15333]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ACE-3]
Amendment to Class E Airspace; Topeka, KS; Kingman, KS;
Hutchinson, KS; and Wahoo, NE
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration [FAA], DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment modifies the Class E airspace area at Philip
Billard Municipal Airport, Topeka, KS; Kingman Municipal Airport,
Kingman, KS; Hutchinson Municipal Airport, Hutchinson, KS; and Wahoo
Municipal Airport, Wahoo, NE. The development of new Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) based on the Global Positioning
System (GPS) has made the proposal necessary. The intended effect of
this proposal is to provide additional controlled airspace for aircraft
executing the SIAPs at the above listed airports.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC August 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Operations Branch, ACE-530C, Federal
Aviation Administration, 601 E. 12th St., Kansas City, MO, 64106;
telephone (816) 426-3408.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On April 9, 1996, the FAA proposed to amend Part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) by modifying the Class E airspace
area at Topeka, KS; Kingman, KS; Hutchinson, KS; and Wahoo, NE (61 FR
15740). The proposed action would provide additional controlled
airspace to accommodate the new SIAP to Philip Billard Municipal
Airport, Topeka, KS; Kingman Municipal Airport, Kingman, KS; Hutchinson
Municipal Airport, Hutchinson, KS; and Wahoo Municipal Airport, Wahoo,
NE.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments objecting to the proposal were received. Class E airspace
areas extending from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth
are published in paragraphs 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 areas at the airports listed
in the SUMMARY, by providing additional controlled airspace for
aircraft executing the new SIAPs. A minor correction is being made to
the geographical coordinates for Topeka, Philip Billard Municipal
Airport, KS.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, 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); 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
Aviation, 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 Part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of 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 from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ACE KS E5 Topeka, Philip Billard Airport, KS
Topeka, Philip Billard Municipal Airport, KS
(lat. 39 deg.04'07''N., long. 95 deg.37'21''W.)
Topeka VORTAC
(lat. 39 deg.08'14''N., long. 95 deg.32'57''W.)
BILOY LOM/NDB
(lat. 39 deg.07'13''N., long. 95 deg.41'14''W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile
[[Page 30508]]
radius of Philip Billard Municipal Airport, and within 1.8 miles
each side of the 039 deg. radial of the Topeka VORTAC extending from
the 6.4-mile radius to 7 miles northeast of the VORTAC, and within 4
miles southwest and 7 miles northeast of the Philip Billard
Municipal Airport ILS localizer course extending from 15 miles
southeast of the airport to 12 miles northwest of BILOY LOM/NDB.
* * * * *
ACE KS E5 Kingman, KS
Kingman Municipal Airport, KS
(lat. 37 deg.40'00''N., long. 98 deg.07'22''W.)
Hutchinson VORTAC
(lat. 37 deg.59'49''N., long. 97 deg.56'03''W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Kingman Municipal Airport, and within
2.2 miles each side of the 204 deg. radial of Hutchinson VORTAC
extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 11.2 miles north of the
airport.
* * * * *
ACE KS E5 Hutchinson, KS
Hutchinson Municipal Airport, KS
(lat. 38 deg.03'56''N., long. 97 deg.51'38''W.)
Hutchinson VORTAC
(lat. 37 deg.59'49''N., long. 97 deg.56'03''W.)
SALTT LOM
(lat. 38 deg.07'25''N., long. 97 deg.55'36''W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Hutchinson Municipal Airport, and within
4 miles each side of the Hutchinson ILS localizer northwest course
extending to 16 miles northwest of the SALTT LOM, and within 4 miles
each side of the ILS localizer back course extending from the 6.6-
mile radius to 7.4 miles southwest of the airport, and within 4
miles each side of the 042 deg. radial of the Hutchinson VORTAC
extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 7.4 miles northeast of the
airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 222 deg. radial of
Hutchinson VORTAC extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 11.2 miles
southwest of the airport.
* * * * *
ACE NE E5 Wahoo, NE
Wahoo Municipal Airport, NE
(lat. 41 deg.14'25'N., long 96 deg.35'41''W.)
Wahoo NDB
(lat. 41 deg.14'21''N., long. 96 deg.35'54''W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of the Wahoo Municipal Airport, and within
2.6 miles each side of the 032 deg. bearing from the Wahoo NDB
extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 7.4 miles northeast of the
airport, excluding that portion which lies within the Fremont, NE,
Class E airspace.
* * * * *
Issued in Kansas City, MO on May 29, 1996.
Herman J. Lyons, Jr.,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 96-15333 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-33-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15323 Limit on Fishery Management Plan Development; Public Law 104-134; Interpretation
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30543-30544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15323]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Chapter VI
[Docket No. 960606161-6161-01; I.D. 051796E]
RIN 0648-XX63
Limit on Fishery Management Plan Development; Public Law 104-134;
Interpretation
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Interpretation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is issuing this document to provide its interpretation of
the limitations placed on the use of appropriated funds by the
Department of Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1996
(Act) for fiscal year 1996. The Act states that no appropriated funds
may be used to develop or implement new fishery management plans
(FMPs), FMP amendments, or regulations that create new individual
fishing quota (IFQ), individual transferable quota (ITQ), or new
individual transferable effort allocation programs, until offsetting
fees to fund such programs are authorized under the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act). The purpose of this
interpretation is to provide guidance to the regional fishery
management councils and the public on the programs for which funds may
not be expended through the end of the fiscal year.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 17, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret F. Hayes, Assistant General
Counsel for Fisheries, 301-713-2231.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The President signed the Act (Public Law 104-134) on April 26,
1996. The Act provides funds for the Department of Commerce through
September 30, 1996. Section 210 of the Act states the following:
None of the funds appropriated under this Act or any other Act
may be used to develop new fishery management plans, amendments or
regulations which create new individual fishing quota, individual
transferable quota, or new individual transferable effort allocation
programs, or to implement any such plans, amendments or regulations
approved by a Regional Fishery Management Council or the Secretary
of Commerce after January 4, 1995, until offsetting fees to pay for
the cost of administering such plans, amendments or regulations are
expressly authorized under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). This restriction shall not
apply in any way to any such programs approved by the Secretary of
Commerce prior to January 4, 1995.
This provision is intertwined with bills currently pending in both
Houses of Congress to reauthorize and amend the Magnuson Act. The
House-passed bill, H.R. 39, would establish fees to be used to
administer individual quota systems. The term ``individual quota'' is
defined in section 16(b) of the House bill as ``a grant of permission
to harvest or process a quantity of fish in a fishery, during each
fishing season for which the permission is granted, equal to a stated
percentage of the total allowable catch for the fishery.''
The Senate bill, S. 39, which has not yet passed the Senate, also
would establish fees to fund an IFQ program. The bill (section 103)
defines ``individual fishing quota'' to mean ``a revocable Federal
permit under a limited access system to harvest a quantity of fish that
is expressed by a unit or units representing a percentage of the
allowable catch of a fishery that may be received or held for exclusive
use by a person.''
Congress' intent in section 210 of the Act apparently was to halt
the development and implementation of any individual quota system--
whether the quotas are transferable or not--pending passage of a law
amending the Magnuson Act to establish fees to finance such systems.
The Senate added the term ``new individual transferable effort
allocation program,'' to section 210 of the Act although that sort of
effort control is not mentioned in either bill to amend the Magnuson
Act.
Interpretation
NMFS interprets the term ``individual fishing quota'' as it is
defined in S. 39. That definition is functionally similar to the
definition of ``individual quota'' in H.R. 39. NMFS believes
``individual transferable quota'' is the same as an IFQ, with the
additional aspect of transferability of quota among those eligible to
hold ITQs. Neither term encompasses ``community development quotas,''
allocations to western Alaska communities that are treated separately
in both bills.
NMFS interprets ``individual transferable effort allocation
program'' to mean systems allowing fishermen to transfer among
themselves or consolidate units of effort, such as days at sea (DAS) or
number of traps. Proposals for such programs have been discussed by the
New England Fishery Management Council for the Atlantic sea scallop and
American lobster fisheries.
Programs Affected
Because they are funded through Federal appropriations, the
regional fishery management councils must suspend work until the end of
the fiscal year on portions of FMPs, amendments, or regulations that
relate to new IFQs, ITQs, or individual transferable effort allocation
programs. NMFS has notified each council of pending proposals it
believes are within the scope of this restriction, as follows:
North Pacific Council: (1) IFQs for the Alaska pollock fishery,
whereby a vessel owner would be allocated annually a certain percentage
of the pollock total allowable catch. (2) Vessel bycatch accounts,
allocations of an allowable take of prohibited species bycatch to an
individual vessel owner or to groups of vessel owners.
Pacific Council: Cumulative trip limits in the non-trawl sablefish
fishery, whereby an allowable catch would be divided among a fixed
number of permit holders, based either on historic harvest of the
vessel or on an equal allocation
[[Page 30544]]
among all vessels. The cumulative trip limit is the equivalent of a
percentage share the vessel owner is entitled to harvest.
Gulf Council: Red snapper ITQ amendment. While the amendment was
approved and final regulations published in 1995, the ITQ system has
not yet been implemented. Section 210 prohibits any work on
implementing the system until the end of this fiscal year.
Mid-Atlantic Council: An ITQ system for mahogany quahogs. Although
this provision is a modification of an approved ITQ system under
Amendment 8 to the Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog FMP, its characteristics
(e.g., the unit of allocation and the period of landings on which it is
calculated) differ so substantively that it must be viewed as a new ITQ
system.
New England Council: Aspects of proposed Amendment 6 to the
Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP relating to transferability or consolidation
of DAS, and proposed Amendment 5 to the American Lobster FMP relating
to transferable quotas and traps.
Classification
This final rule is issued under the Magnuson Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et
seq.
In that this rule merely interprets a provision of Public Law 104-
134 without creating any new rights or duties, it is not subject to the
requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Similarly, as an interpretive rule, it is not
subject to a 30-day delay in effective date pursuant to authority set
forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(2).
This rule has been determined to be not significant for the
purposes of E.O. 12866.
Dated: June 11, 1996.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-15323 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15267 Subsidiary Accounting Requirements Concerning Video Dialtone Costs and Revenues for Local Exchange Carriers Offering Video Dialtone Services
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30531-30532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15267]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Chapter I
[FCC 96-240]
Subsidiary Accounting Requirements Concerning Video Dialtone
Costs and Revenues for Local Exchange Carriers Offering Video Dialtone
Services
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Memorandum Opinion and Order requires LECs to change the
classification of asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) switches from
circuit equipment to switching equipment for the purposes of assigning
investment to accounts in the Uniform System of Accounts. This
Memorandum Opinion and Order disposes of six Applications for Review
filed by or on behalf of local exchange carriers. The Memorandum
Opinion and Order is intended to clarify the proper accounting
treatment for the local exchange carriers' investment in ATM equipment.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 17, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas David, Tariff Division, Common
Carrier Bureau, (202) 418-0850.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Memorandum Opinion and Order adopted May 29, 1996, and released May 30,
1996. The full text of this Commission decision is available for
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Public
Reference Room (Room 230), 1919 M St., N.W., Washington, D.C. The
complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service,
Suite 140, 2100 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037.
Summary of Report and Order
BellSouth, Southwestern Bell and NARUC challenge the Bureau's
previous determination in Responsible Accounting Officer Letter 25 that
ATM equipment should be classified as circuit equipment. The Commission
agrees that certain types of ATM switching equipment route video
signals along transmission paths and thus should be classified as
switching equipment. The Commission further found that other ATM
equipment used for video applications should be classified based on its
function or use as either switching or circuit equipment.
Ordering Clauses
1. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 220 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 154(i), 154(j),
and 220 and Section 1.115 of our rules, 47 C.F.R. Sec. 1.115, it is
ordered that the Applications for Review filed by Bell Atlantic
Telephone Companies, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., GTE Service
Corporation, National Telephone Cooperative Association, Southwestern
Bell Telephone Company, and US West Communications, Inc. on or before
May 3, 1995 are granted to the extent indicated in this Order and to
the extent not granted, are dismissed.
It is further ordered that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j), and
220 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
Secs. 154(i), 154(j), 220, and Sections 1.3 and 32.18 of our rules, 47
C.F.R. Secs. 1.3 and 32.18, the Petition for Waiver filed by US West
Communications Inc. on September 5, 1995 is dismissed.
[[Page 30532]]
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-15267 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15259 Removal of CFR Chapter
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15259]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Travel and Tourism Administration
15 CFR Chapter XII
[Docket No. 960610168-6168-01]
RIN 0644-XX01
Removal of CFR Chapter
AGENCY: United States Travel and Tourism Administration, Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of
1996 did not include funding for the U.S. Travel and Tourism
Administration. Some functions that are directly linked to tourism and
trade are being established in the International Trade Administration,
and no further funding is required. Therefore, the United States Travel
and Tourism regulations regarding the issuance of grants to promote
travel to States or their political subdivisions by foreign residents
are being removed from the Code of Federal Regulations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 17, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joan DeBellis, 202-482-4606.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In March 1995, President Clinton issued a
directive to Federal agencies regarding their responsibilities under
his Regulatory Reform Initiative. This initiative is part of the
National Performance Review and calls for immediate, comprehensive
regulatory reform. The President directed all agencies to undertake, as
part of this initiative, an exhaustive review of all their
regulations--with an emphasis on eliminating or modifying those that
are obsolete or otherwise in need of reform. The Omnibus Consolidated
Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-134) did not
include funding for the United States Travel and Tourism
Administration. On April 27, 1996, the United States Travel and Tourism
Administration ceased to exist. Therefore, the regulations regarding
the issuance of grants to promote travel to States or their political
subdivisions by foreign residents are being removed because the program
is no longer funded.
Miscellaneous Rulemaking Requirements
1. It has been determined that this rulemaking action is not
significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
2. This rulemaking is exempt from all procedural requirements of
section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553.
List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 1200
Grant programs--transportation, Travel.
CHAPTER XII--[REMOVED]
Accordingly, under authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 15 CFR is amended by
removing part 1200 and vacating Chapter XII.
Alan Balutis,
Director, Budget, Management and Information and Chief Information
Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-15259 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-BS-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15257 Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Pacific Cod by Vessels Using Trawl Gear
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15257]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 675
[Docket No. 960129019-6019-01; I.D. 061096A]
Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Pacific
Cod 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 the Pacific cod fishery
by vessels using trawl gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to fully utilize the
first seasonal bycatch allowance of Pacific halibut apportioned to the
trawl Pacific cod fishery category in the BSAI.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), June 14, 1996,
until 12 noon, A.l.t., October 25, 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.
Directed fishing for Pacific cod by vessels using trawl gear in the
BSAI was prohibited on May 14, 1996, (61 FR 24730, May 16, 1996) to
prevent exceeding the first seasonal bycatch allowance of Pacific
halibut apportioned to that fishery.
The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that as of May
25, 1996, 89 metric tons of halibut mortality remain in the first
seasonal bycatch allowance. Therefore, NMFS is terminating the previous
closure and is opening directed fishing for Pacific cod 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: June 11, 1996.
Richard H. Schaefer,
Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-15257 Filed 6-12-96; 10:44 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15250 Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non- discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 30509] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 96-15250] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Parts 35 and 385 [Docket Nos. RM95-8-000 and RM94-7-001] Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non- discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities Issued June 6, 1996. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Final rule; notice of filing of motion for clarification. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: On May 13, 1996, the coalition for a Competitive Electric Market (CCEM) filed a motion for expedited clarification of the service requirements for filing tariffs in compliance with the final rule in this proceeding (61 FR 21540, May 10, 1996). CCEM asks the Commission to clarify that public utilities are to provide a copy of their compliance filings on electronic diskette (in word-processing format containing a redline version comparing the compliance tariff with the pro forma tariff), via overnight delivery, to any eligible customer that requests a copy of the compliance tariff in advance of its filing with the Commission and that is prepared to pay the costs associated with such service. Copies of CCEM's motion are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. DATES: Any person desiring to respond to CCEM's motion should file an answer on or before June 21, 1996. ADDRESSES: Send answers to: Office of the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE, Washington, DC 20426. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David D. Withnell, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the General Counsel, 888 First ST., N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, Telephone: (202) 208-2063.. Lois D. Cashell, Secretary. [FR Doc. 96-15250 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15233 Classification, Declassification, and Safeguarding of Classified Information
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30495]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15233]
========================================================================
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. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 30495]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of the Secretary
7 CFR Part 10
Classification, Declassification, and Safeguarding of Classified
Information
AGENCY: Department of Agriculture.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule removes the Department of Agriculture
(hereinafter ``USDA'') regulation on classification, declassification,
and safeguarding of classified information. This regulation is
unnecessary because no requests to declassify documents have been made
by the public since it was placed in the Federal Register on March 18,
1983. This action is being taken as part of the National Performance
Review program to eliminate unnecessary regulations and improve those
that remain in force.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 17, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. James A. Long, Jr., Acting Department Security Officer, Department
of Agriculture, AG Box 9616, Washington, D.C. 20250-9616, telephone
(202) 720-8313, FAX (202) 690-0681.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 17, 1995, the President signed
Executive Order 12958, ``Classified National Security Information,''
which revoked Executive Order 12356 effective October 16, 1995.
Executive Order 12958 requires publication in the Federal Register
regulations regarding an agency program for classifying, safeguarding,
and declassifying national security information that ``affect members
of the public.'' We do not believe that publication is necessary
because they do not affect members of the public. Since 1983, the only
requests to review classified documents have come to us from other
government departments or agencies. No requests have been received from
the public. The removal of 7 CFR Part 10 eliminates a regulation which
encompasses 6 pages of the CFR. The Acting Director of Human Resources
Management has determined that the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
chapter 35) does not apply because this regulation is being removed.
PART 10--CLASSIFICATION, DECLASSIFICATION, AND SAFEGUARDING
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
7 CFR Part 10 is removed.
Dan Glickman,
Secretary of Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 96-15233 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15212 Subdivision of Restricted Area R-2103, Fort Rucker, AL
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30508-30509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15212]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 73
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ASO-18]
Subdivision of Restricted Area R-2103, Fort Rucker, AL
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action subdivides Restricted Area 2103 (R-2103), Fort
Rucker, AL, into two separate areas, to permit more efficient use of
the airspace. R-2103A is designated from the surface to but not
including 10,000 feet mean sea level (MSL), and R-2103B is designated
from 10,000 feet MSL to 15,000 feet MSL. This subdivision of the
restricted areas utilize the existing lateral boundaries of R-2103. No
new restricted airspace is established by this action.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, August 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace and Rules
Division, ATA-400, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Rule
This amendment to 14 CFR part 73 subdivides R-2103, Fort Rucker,
AL, into two separate areas to permit more efficient utilization of
airspace. Currently, R-2103 extends from the surface to 15,000 feet
MSL, with a time of designation of ``continuous.'' The using agency has
determined that the majority of mission activities currently do not
require restricted airspace above 10,000 feet MSL. Certain activities,
however, still require restricted airspace up to the 15,000 feet MSL
ceiling, but not on a ``continuous'' basis. Under the current
restricted area configuration, airspace is restricted up to 15,000 feet
MSL even when mission activities do not require airspace above 10,000
feet MSL. This unnecessarily limits public access to a portion of the
airspace. This amendment will subdivide the existing R-2103 as follows:
R-2103A is designated from the surface to but not including 10,000 feet
MSL, and retains a ``continuous'' time of designation. Cairns Approach
Control, a U.S. Army air traffic control facility, is designated as the
controlling agency for R-2103A, per agreement with the FAA,
Jacksonville ARTCC. R-2103B is designated from 10,000 feet MSL to
15,000 feet MSL, with a time of designation of ``By Notice to Airmen
(NOTAM) 6 hours in advance.'' The FAA, Jacksonville ARTCC is designated
as the controlling agency for R-2103B. This change enables the using
agency to accomplish its mission while improving the capability to
activate only the minimum amount of restricted airspace necessary for
that mission. There is no change to the lateral boundaries or
activities conducted in the existing area. This action affects only the
internal subdivision of an existing restricted area and enhances
efficient airspace utilization. Therefore, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary since this
action is a minor amendment in which the public would not be
particularly interested. The coordinates for this airspace docket are
based on North American Datum 83. Section 73.21 of part 73 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations was republished in FAA Order 7400.8C dated
June 19, 1995.
Environmental Review
This action internally subdivides an existing restricted area and
does not affect the lateral boundaries or overall vertical limits of
restricted airspace. There are no changes to air traffic control
procedures, routes, or type of activity conducted within these
boundaries as a result of this amendment. Therefore, this action is not
subject to environmental assessments and procedures under FAA Order
1050.1D, ``Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental
Impacts,'' and the National Environmental Policy Act.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73
Airspace, Navigation (air).
[[Page 30509]]
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:
PART 73--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 73.21 [Amended]
2. Section 73.21 is amended as follows:
R-2103 Fort Rucker, AL [Removed]
R-2103A Fort Rucker, AL [New]
Boundaries. A circular area with a radius of 4 miles centered at
lat. 31 deg.26'56''N., long. 85 deg.47'45''W.
Designated altitudes. Surface to but not including 10,000 feet
MSL.
Time of designation. Continuous.
Controlling agency. U.S. Army, Cairns Approach Control.
Using agency. Commanding General, U.S. Army Aviation Center,
Fort Rucker, AL.
R-2103B Fort Rucker, AL [New]
Boundaries. A circular area with a radius of 4 miles centered at
lat. 31 deg.26'56''N., long. 85 deg.47'45''W.
Designated altitudes. 10,000 feet MSL to 15,000 feet MSL.
Time of designation. By NOTAM 6 hours in advance.
Controlling agency. FAA, Jacksonville ARTCC.
Using agency. Commanding General, U.S. Army Aviation Center,
Fort Rucker, AL.
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 5, 1996.
Harold W. Becker,
Acting Program Director for Air Traffic, Airspace Management.
[FR Doc. 96-15212 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15210 UHF Noise Figure Performance Measurements
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15210]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 15
[ET Docket No. 95-144; FCC 96-219]
UHF Noise Figure Performance Measurements
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: By this action, the Commission modified its rules to eliminate
the requirement that parties who manufacture, import or market
television receivers file reports concerning the UHF noise figure
performance of recently-introduced models. We found that the
requirement for the filing of UHF television noise figure performance
measurements had become obsolete and burdensome. By eliminating this
requirement we anticipate that the administrative burden on industry as
well as on the Commission will be greatly reduced without any
deterioration of the television receiver compliance rate.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 16, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raymond A. LaForge at (202) 418-2417,
Office of Engineering and Technology.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order, adopted May 14, 1996, and released June 3, 1996. The full
text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and
copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room
239), 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, DC. The complete text of this
decision also may be purchased from the Commission's duplication
contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800,
2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037.
Summary of Report and Order
1. The Electronics Industry Association Consumer Electronics Group,
now known as the Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association
(``CEMA''), petitioned the Commission to eliminate the requirement that
parties who manufacture, import or market television receivers file
reports concerning the UHF noise figure performance of television
receivers. On September 5, 1995, the Commission issued a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making (``NPRM''), 60 FR 49421, September 22, 1995,
proposing to eliminate the requirement that parties who manufacture,
import, or market television receivers file UHF television noise figure
measurement reports.
2. CEMA, the only entity to file comments and reply comments
supported the Commission's proposal to eliminate the UHF noise figure
reporting requirements stating that this initiative furthers the
Administration's regulatory reinvention goals by minimizing the
reporting burdens on business. It stated that both industry and
Commission resources could be redeployed for other business if the UHF
noise figure reporting requirement is eliminated.
3. CEMA also noted that the UHF noise figure reporting requirement
is inconsistent with the Commission's verification process. It states
that under this process manufacturers and importers of television
receivers must maintain records of the results of their tests, although
they are not required to submit sample products or test reports to the
Commission unless specifically requested by the Commission. However,
the UHF noise figure reporting requirement obligates manufacturers and
importers to compile test measurement data on UHF noise figures for
each model during the first year of its introduction and to file these
performance measurements with the Commission. CEMA maintained that the
requirement for filing this data is inconsistent with the concept of
self-approval, which is the heart of the verification process. CEMA
argued that the verification process and market forces are therefore
sufficient to ensure compliance with the UHF noise figure requirement.
Based on the record, we agree with CEMA that the filing of performance
measurement data is no longer necessary to ensure compliance with our
UHF noise figure requirement. Thus, we are amending our rules to
eliminate Section 15.117(g)(3).
4. Accordingly, it is ordered, that Part 15 of the Commission's
Rules and Regulations ARE AMENDED as specified below, effective August
16, 1996. The authority for issuance of this Report and Order is
contained in Sections 4(i), 302, 303 (c), (f), (g), and (r), and 309(a)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections
154(i), 302, 303 (c), (f), (g), and (r).
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 603, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis was incorporated in the NPRM in ET Docket No. 95-144, FCC 95-
389, 60 FR 49421, September 22, 1995. Written comments on the proposal
in the NPRM, including the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, were
requested. Only one comment and one reply comment were submitted by the
petitioner, CEMA.
1. Need for and Objective of Rules. Our objectives are to decrease
the administrative burden on manufacturers and importers by eliminating
the requirement for submission of performance data to demonstrate
compliance with the Commission's UHF noise figure requirement. We
believe this requirement is no longer necessary to ensure compliance.
Therefore, by eliminating the requirement for manufacturers and
importers to develop and file this data with the Commission, we expect
to greatly reduce the administrative burden on industry as well as on
the Commission.
2. Issues Raised by the Public in Response to the Initial Analysis.
The petitioner was the only party to offer comments to the proposal
raised in the NPRM, but the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was
not raised as an issue.
3. Any Significant Alternative Minimizing Impact on Small Entities
and Consistent with Stated Objectives. The alternative to amending Part
15 of the Commission's Rules is to continue the requirement that
performance data be filed with the Commission to demonstrate compliance
with the UHF noise figure requirement. However, this would result in a
missed opportunity to remove an unnecessary administrative burden on
industry.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 15
Radio, Reporting and recordkeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
Rule Changes
Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 15, is amended as
follows:
PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES
1. The authority citation for Part 15 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 302, 303, 304, 307 and 624A of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303,
304, 307 and 544A.
2. Section 15.117 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(g)(3).
[FR Doc. 96-15210 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15141 Airworthiness Directives; Jetstream Aircraft Limited (Formerly British Aerospace, Regional Airlines Limited) Jetstream Model 3201 Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30505-30507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15141]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 93-CE-34-AD; Amendment 39-9670; AD 96-13-02]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Jetstream Aircraft Limited (Formerly
British Aerospace, Regional Airlines Limited) Jetstream Model 3201
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that
applies to certain Jetstream Aircraft Limited (JAL) Jetstream Model
3201 airplanes. This action requires repetitively inspecting the spigot
housing plate for cracks and corrosion at the wing/fuselage forward
attachment sliding joint, replacing any cracked or corroded part, and
eventually replacing the spigots and spigot housing plate with new
parts of improved design. A crack in the spigot housing plate assembly
found during fatigue testing of the affected airplanes prompted this
action. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent
structural failure of the wing/fuselage area caused by a cracked or
corroded spigot housing assembly.
DATES: Effective August 7, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of August 7, 1996.
[[Page 30506]]
ADDRESSES: Service information that applies to this AD may be obtained
from Jetstream Aircraft Limited, Prestwick International Airport,
Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, telephone (44-292) 79888; facsimile (44-
292) 79703; or Jetstream Aircraft Inc., Librarian, P.O. Box 16029,
Dulles International Airport, Washington, D.C. 20041-6029; telephone
(703) 406-1161; facsimile (703) 406-1469. This information may also be
examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Central Region,
Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket 93-CE-
34-AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or
at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,
suite 700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Dorenda Baker, Program Manager,
Brussels Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Europe, Africa, and Middle
East Office, c/o American Embassy, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium; telephone
(32 2) 508.2715; facsimile (32 2) 230.6899; or Mr. Jeffrey Morfitt,
Project Officer, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service, FAA, 1201 Walnut, suite 900, Kansas City, Missouri 64105;
telephone (816) 426-6932; facsimile (816) 426-2169.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Events Leading to the AD
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to certain JAL Jetstream
Model 3201 airplanes was published in the Federal Register on September
19, 1995 (60 FR 48429). The action proposed to require repetitively
inspecting the spigot housing plate for cracks and corrosion at the
wing/fuselage forward attachment sliding joint, replacing any cracked
or corroded part, and eventually replacing the spigots and spigot
housing plate with new parts of improved design. Accomplishment of the
proposed actions would be in accordance with Jetstream Service Bulletin
No. 57-JA 921144, Revision 1, dated April 19, 1994.
A crack in the spigot housing plate assembly found during fatigue
testing of the affected airplanes prompted this action.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the
proposed rule or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.
After careful review of all available information related to the
subject presented above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the
public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for
minor editorial corrections. The FAA has determined that these minor
corrections will not change the meaning of the AD and will not add any
additional burden upon the public than was already proposed.
Cost Impact
The FAA estimates that 120 airplanes in the U.S. registry will be
affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 23 workhours per
airplane to accomplish the initial inspection and modification, and
that the average labor rate is approximately $60 an hour. JAL will
provide parts at no cost to the owner/operator. Based on these figures,
the total cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$165,600 or $1,380 per airplane. This figure is based on the assumption
that none of the affected airplanes have the required modification
incorporated and does not take into account the cost of repetitive
inspections. The FAA has no way of determining how many repetitive
inspections each owner/operator will incur over the life of the
airplane.
Jetstream Aircraft Limited has informed the FAA that parts have
been distributed to equip approximately 30 airplanes (approximately 25
percent of the fleet in the U.S. registry). Assuming that each set of
parts is installed on an affected Jetstream Model 3201 airplane, the
cost impact of this AD upon U.S. operators is reduced $41,400 from
$165,600 to $124,200.
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 copy of the final evaluation prepared for this
action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the
caption Addresses.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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 a new airworthiness directive
(AD) to read as follows:
96-13-02 Jetstream Aircraft Limited: Amendment 39-9670; Docket No.
93-CE-34-AD.
Applicability: Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes (serial numbers
790 through 960), 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 after the effective date of
this AD, unless already accomplished.
To prevent structural failure of the wing/fuselage area caused
by a cracked spigot housing assembly, accomplish the following:
(a) Upon the accumulation of 7,200 hours time-in-service (TIS)
or within the next 500 hours TIS after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later, inspect the spigot housing plate at the
wing/fuselage forward attachment sliding joint for corrosion or
cracks. Accomplish this inspection in accordance with Part 1 of the
ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS section of Jetstream Service Bulletin
(SB) No. 57-JA 921144, Revision 1, dated April 19, 1994; or
Jetstream SB No. 57-JA 921144, Original Issue, dated March 4, 1993.
(1) If any corrosion or cracks are found, prior to further
flight, modify the spigot and spigot housing plate in accordance
with
[[Page 30507]]
either Part 2 or Part 3, as applicable, of the ACCOMPLISHMENT
INSTRUCTIONS section of Jetstream SB No. 57-JA 921144, Revision 1,
dated April 19, 1994. -
(2) If no corrosion or cracks are found, within the next 3,000
hours TIS after the inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD,
modify the spigot and spigot housing plate in accordance with either
Part 2 or Part 3, as applicable, of the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS
section of Jetstream SB No. 57-JA 921144, Revision 1, dated April
19, 1994.
(3) Jetstream No. SB 57-JA 921144, Original Issue, dated March
4, 1993, is not applicable to this modification and shall not be
utilized to accomplish either paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD.
(b) 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.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
initial or repetitive compliance times that provides an equivalent
level of safety may be approved by the Manager, Brussels Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), Europe, Africa, Middle East office, FAA,
c/o American Embassy, 1000 Brussels, Belgium. The request should be
forwarded through an appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may
add comments and then send it to the Manager, Brussels ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Brussels ACO.
(d) The inspection required by this AD shall be done in
accordance with Jetstream Service Bulletin No. 57-JA 921144,
Revision 1, dated April 19, 1994; or Jetstream Service Bulletin No.
57-JA 921144, Original Issue, dated March 4, 1993. The modification
required by this AD shall be done in accordance with Jetstream
Service Bulletin No. 57-JA 921144, Revision 1, dated April 19, 1994.
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 Jetstream Aircraft Limited, Manager
Product Support, Prestwick Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW Scotland; or
Jetstream Aircraft Inc., Librarian, P.O. Box 16029, Dulles
International Airport, Washington, DC, 20041-6029. Copies may be
inspected at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri, or at
the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,
suite 700, Washington, DC.
(e) This amendment (39-9670) becomes effective on August 7,
1996.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 10, 1996.
Henry A. Armstrong,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-15141 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15139 Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company Models 208 and 208B Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30505]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15139]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-CE-05-AD; Amendment 39-9591; AD 96-09-15]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company Models 208 and
208B Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action makes a correction to Airworthiness Directive (AD)
96-09-15 concerning all Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) Models 208 and
208B airplanes, which was published in the Federal Register on May 7,
1996 (61 FR 20641). That publication incorrectly references a cue for
the pilot or crew member in severe icing conditions. The AD currently
requires the pilot to follow certain visual cues during flight in icing
conditions and the third of these cues requires the pilot to look at
the engine propeller spinner. This cue is inappropriate for this type
of airplane. The intent of the AD in paragraph (a) (1), first bullet,
third cue, should not be a requirement for the Cessna Models 208 and
208B. This action corrects the AD to reflect this change.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Dow, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 1201 Walnut, suite 900, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 426-6934; facsimile (816) 426-2169.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 7, 1996, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) issued AD 96-09-15, Amendment 39-9591 (61 FR
20641, May 7, 1996), which applies to all Cessna Models 208 and 208B
airplanes. This AD requires a revision in the Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM) by incorporating a warning into the Limitations Section of the
AFM. Within this warning (in the first bulleted paragraph) are cues for
the pilot to follow during flight in severe icing conditions. The third
cue references accumulation of ice on the engine propeller spinner.
Need for the Correction
The AD incorrectly references the ``* * * engines propeller spinner
* * *'' which is not appropriate for the type design of these Cessna
Models 208 and 208B airplanes. These airplanes are single engine
designs which would not allow the pilot to see the engine propeller
spinner from the cockpit.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, the publication of May 7, 1996 (61 FR 20641), of
Amendment 39-9591; AD 96-09-15, which was the subject of FR Doc. 96-
10729, is corrected as follows:
Sec. 39.13 [Corrected] -
On page 20642, in the third column, section 39.13, paragraph (a)
(1), line 17 from the top of the column, disregard and delete ``-
Accumulation of ice on the engine propeller spinner * * *''.
Action is taken herein to clarify this requirement of AD 96-09-15
and to add this AD correction to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR 39.13).
The effective date remains June 11, 1996.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on June 10, 1996.
Henry A. Armstrong,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-15139 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15093 Cranberries Grown in the States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York; Change in Reporting Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30497-30498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15093]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 929
[Docket No. FV-96-929-1FR]
Cranberries Grown in the States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon,
Washington, and Long Island in the State of New York; Change in
Reporting Requirements
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule modifies language in the cranberry marketing
order's rules and regulations to change the first date by which
handlers must file their acquisition reports from February 5 to January
5 during each crop year. This rule will provide more useful production
information to the cranberry industry at an earlier time and is based
on a recommendation of the Cranberry Marketing Committee (Committee),
which is responsible for local administration of the order.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes effective July 17, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia A. Petrella or Kathleen M.
Finn, Marketing Specialists, Marketing Order Administration Branch,
F&V, AMS, USDA, room 2522-S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456:
telephone: (202) 720-1509, Fax # (202) 720-5698.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule is issued under Marketing
Order No. 929 (7 CFR Part 929), as amended, regulating the handling of
cranberries grown in 10 States, hereinafter referred to as the
``order.'' The order is 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 final
rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive
effect. This final rule will not preempt any State or local laws,
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. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the
petition. After the hearing the Secretary will 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 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 action 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 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 15 handlers of cranberries who are subject
to regulation under the marketing order and approximately 1,100
producers of cranberries in the regulated area. Small agricultural
service firms, which includes handlers, have been defined by the Small
Business Administration (13 CFR 121.601) as those having annual
receipts of less than $5,000,000, and small agricultural producers are
defined as those having annual receipts of less than $500,000. A
majority of handlers and producers of cranberries may be classified as
small entities.
This rule modifies the language in the order's rules and
regulations to change the first date by which handlers must file their
acquisition reports from February 5 to January 5. The committee
unanimously recommended that the date be changed from February 5 to
January 1. The Department proposed modifying the recommendation by
requiring the first report to be filed by January 5 in order to allow
sufficient time for the handlers to file the reports.
Section 929.62(b) of the cranberry marketing order provides
authority to require each handler to file promptly with the committee a
certified report as to the quantity of cranberries acquired during such
period as may be specified. The fiscal period under the order is from
September 1 of one year through August 31 of the following year.
Section 929.105(b) of the order's rules and regulations prescribe that
certified reports shall be filed by each handler to the committee not
later than the 5th day of February, May, and August of each fiscal
period and the 5th day of September of the succeeding fiscal period.
Such report shall show the total quantity of cranberries the handler
acquired and the total quantity of cranberries the handler handled from
the beginning of the reporting period indicated through January 31,
April 30, July 31, and August 31, respectively.
The committee recommended that the first acquisition report due to
the committee on February 5 that shows the total quantity of
cranberries the handler acquired through January 31 be changed to an
earlier date. This will provide producers and handlers vital production
information earlier in the season and allow them to plan accordingly.
The order's reporting and recordkeeping requirements have not been
amended since 1988. Handlers' techniques in gathering and recording
acquisition data have progressed considerably over the last seven
years. Handlers have indicated that they could provide the committee
with an acquisition report prior to January 1 of the crop year.
Therefore, the committee recommended that section 929.105(b) be
revised by changing the first reporting
[[Page 30498]]
due date from February 5 to January 1. As stated previously, the
Department has modified this date from January 1 to January 5. The
first acquisition report currently shows the total quantity of
cranberries acquired and the total quantity of cranberries handled from
the beginning of the reporting period through January 31. The committee
also recommended that the January 31 date be changed to December 31 to
make the report consistent with the new due date. In addition, the
Department is modifying Sec. 929.105(b) by listing each one of the due
dates. This will make the section easier to understand as to when each
report is due.
The proposed rule concerning this action was published in the April
22, 1996, Federal Register (78 FR 17586), with a 30-day comment period
ending May 22, 1996. No comments were received.
There was one error in the regulatory text appearing in the
proposed rule. In Sec. 929.105(b)(2), the proposed rule indicated that
the certified report due from handlers on January 5 show the quantities
of cranberries and cranberry products held by the handler on February
1. The latter date should be January 1. This final rule corrects
Sec. 929.105(b)(2) accordingly.
Based on the above, the AMS has determined that this action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule modifies language in the cranberry marketing
order's rules and regulations to change the first date by which
handlers must file their acquisition reports from February 5 to January
5 during each crop year. This rule will provide more useful production
information to the cranberry industry at an earlier time.
The information collection requirements contained in the referenced
section have been previously approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) and have been assigned OMB number 0581-0103.
After consideration of all relevant matter presented, including the
information and recommendations 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.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 929
Marketing agreements, Cranberries, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 929 is
amended as follows:
PART 929--CRANBERRIES GROWN IN THE STATES OF MASSACHUSETTS, RHODE
ISLAND, CONNECTICUT, NEW JERSEY, WISCONSIN, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA,
OREGON, WASHINGTON, AND LONG ISLAND IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 929 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
2. Section 929.105 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 929.105 Reporting.
* * * * *
(b) Certified reports shall be filed with the committee, on a form
provided by the committee, by each handler not later than January 5,
May 5, and August 5 of each fiscal period and by September 5 of the
succeeding fiscal period showing:
(1) The total quantity of cranberries the handler acquired and the
total quantity of cranberries the handler handled from the beginning of
the reporting period indicated through December 31, April 30, July 31,
and August 31, respectively, and
(2) The respective quantities of cranberries and cranberry products
held by the handler on January 1, May 1, August 1, and August 31 of
each fiscal period.
Dated: June 10, 1996.
Robert C. Keeney,
Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-15093 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15092 Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information OrderPostponement of Payment of Assessments
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30498-30501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15092]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 1208
[FV-95-702FR]
Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information
Order--Postponement of Payment of Assessments
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule establishes a rules and regulations subpart
under the Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and
Information Order (Order). The Order is authorized under the Fresh Cut
Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act of 1993.
This rule implements a provision of the Order concerning the
postponement of the payment of assessments. This action establishes
procedures for the postponement of the payment of assessments to the
National PromoFlor Council.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 18, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sonia N. Jimenez, Research and
Promotion Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box
96456, Room 2535-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456, telephone (202) 720-
9916.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under the Fresh Cut
Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act of 1993 [7
U.S.C. 6801 et seq.], hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the
Order.
This rule has been issued in conformance with Executive Order
12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. This
rule will not preempt any State or local laws, 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 Sec. 8 of the Act, a
person subject to the order may file a petition with the Secretary
stating that the order or any provision of the order, or any obligation
imposed in connection with the order, is not in accordance with law and
requesting a modification of the order or an exemption from the order.
The petitioner is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the
petition. After such hearing, the Secretary will make a ruling on the
petition. The Act provides that the district courts of the United
States in any district in which a person who is a petitioner resides or
carries on business are vested with jurisdiction to review the
Secretary's ruling on the petition, if a complaint for that purpose is
filed within 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA), AMS has considered the economic impact of this action 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.
Only those wholesale handlers, retail distribution centers,
producers, and importers who have annual sales of $750,000 or more of
cut flowers and greens and who sell those products to exempt handlers,
retailers, or consumers are considered qualified handlers and
[[Page 30499]]
assessed under the Order. There are approximately 900 wholesaler
handlers, 150 importers, and 200 domestic producers who are qualified
handlers.
The majority of these qualified handlers would be classified as
small businesses. Small agricultural service firms have been defined by
the Small Business Administration [13 CFR 121.601] as those having
annual receipts of less than $5 million. Statistics reported by the
National Agricultural Statistics Service show that 1994 sales at
wholesale of domestic cut flowers and greens total approximately $559.6
million while the value of imports during 1994 was approximately $382
million. The leading States in the United States producing cut flowers
and greens, by wholesale value, are California, which produces
approximately 49 percent of the domestic crop, followed by Florida,
Colorado, and Hawaii. Major countries exporting cut flowers and greens
into the United States, by value, are Colombia, which accounts for
approximately 60 percent, followed by The Netherlands, Mexico, and
Costa Rica.
The Act and the Order provide for the postponement of assessments.
This rule establishes procedures for the postponement of the payment of
assessments to the Council, which lessens the regulatory impact of the
Order on large and small businesses alike. Therefore, AMS has
determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35], the information collection requirements contained in the
Order have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under OMB number 0581-0093 and have an expiration date of January 31,
1997.
Background
The Act authorized the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) to
establish a national cut flowers and greens promotion and consumer
information program. The program is funded by an assessment of \1/2\
percent of gross sales of cut flowers and greens which is levied on
qualified handlers. The program is administered by the National
PromoFlor Council (Council) under the supervision of the Department of
Agriculture (Department). Section 1208.55 of the Order provides for the
postponement of assessments.
The Council met on September 11, 1995, and recommended that, in
order for a request for the postponement of assessments to be granted,
the requester should comply with the following: (1) Submit a written
opinion from a Certified Public Accountant stating that the handler
making the request is insolvent or will be unable to continue to
operate if the handler is required to pay the assessment when due and
(2) submit copies of the last three (3) years' federal tax returns. The
Council stated that these two requirements are needed to verify that
the qualified handler is financially unable to make the payment of the
assessments due and that the postponement of payment, if granted,
complies with the requirements set forth in the Order. In addition, the
requester should submit to the Council a completed application form
(``Application for Postponement of Payment of PromoFlor Assessments'').
A proposed rule regarding the Council's recommendation was
published in the Federal Register on November 27, 1995 [60 FR 58253].
That rule contained a proposed new subpart for rules and regulations
under the Order. In addition, it proposed the establishment of
procedures for the postponement of the payment of assessments to the
Council.
The deadline for comments on the proposed rule was January 26,
1996. Two comments were received. One comment was received from the
Council, and another comment was received from a greenhouse operator.
The Council commented that the proposal did not address the
consequences if a qualified handler does not meet the 30-day deadline
for requesting the postponement of the payment of assessments. The
Council stated that it should not be required to consider requests that
are made after the deadline. However, the rule already states that, for
a request for postponement of assessments to be granted, the request
must be in writing no later than 30 days after the assessments were
due. Therefore, the Council can not consider any late requests.
The Council also commented that the qualified handler should be
required to complete and sign a handler report for each month the
assessments are owed or to list sales and assessments due for each
month in the form of a signed statement. The second commentor also
commented that the reporting requirement needs to be met so that the
Council can track what is owed. The Department agrees that the
qualified handler should file a qualified handler report for each month
assessments are due even though the postponement of the payment of
assessment has been granted and has revised the procedures accordingly.
In addition, the Council commented that it should not be required
to audit a qualified handler who has gone through the postponement
process. Section 1208.71 of the Order requires qualified handlers to
maintain and make records available for inspection by agents of the
Council or the Secretary. The Department believes that an audit of the
books of the qualified handler requesting the postponement of the
payment of assessments may be necessary in order to verify any
information provided and, if necessary, pursue collection of past-due
assessments. Therefore, the Department disagrees with this comment.
The Council further commented that the number of extensions for the
postponement of the payment of assessments be limited to one. The
second commentor stated that the postponement should be open ended. He
commented that the business should not have to pay until it recovers or
goes bankrupt.
The Department agrees that the postponement of the payment of
assessments should not be indefinite. It is the purpose of these
procedures to bring qualified handlers into compliance as soon as
practicable after giving them the opportunity to recover from a
financial difficulty. Accordingly, the comment recommending that the
postponement period be open ended is denied, and the Council's comment
on limiting extensions of the postponement periods is granted.
The proposal has been revised to state that one extension of the
postponement of the payment of assessments may be granted covering the
same period previously requested. The extension of the postponement may
not exceed six (6) months. If an individual requests that another
period be postponed, that person must file another application for the
postponement of the payment of assessments of the second period. The
qualified handler may request the postponement of the payment of
assessments for a maximum of two periods only. Each period postponed
could include a maximum of six (6) months. The payment of assessments
for the second period of postponement, if granted, may not be extended.
The payment period must not exceed the length of the postponement
period. The payment period for the total assessments due, when an
extension and a second period are granted, must begin within one (1)
year after the first postponed month's assessments were originally due.
However, these procedures are not intended to be
[[Page 30500]]
retroactive for those individuals who requested postponement of the
payment of assessments before this rule becomes effective.
The Council will have the right to audit the records of those
requesting an extension or those requesting more than one postponement
period to verify the validity of the request(s). If it is determined
that the qualified handler is capable of meeting the obligations of
payment of assessments, the qualified handler will be given the
opportunity to start paying the assessments. If the qualified handler
refuses to pay the assessments due, the Council will refer the debt to
the Department for collection after notifying the qualified handler.
The second commentor stated that the requirements for requesting
the postponement of the payment of assessments should be simple, such
as an officer of the company certifying that the company is not able to
meet the terms of the payment of his vendors and that dividends are not
being paid. Such statement could be provided by a Certified Public
Accountant.
The Department believes that the procedures established by this
final rule are reasonable and are not burdensome to a qualified handler
that requests a postponement of the payment of assessments. Therefore,
this comment is denied.
In addition, the second commentor stated that the Department should
address producers' financial hardship due to imports of certain
flowers. Although this issue may be cause of concern to certain
producers and handlers, it is not relevant to this rulemaking.
In addition, to the changes described above, the Department has
made a few editorial changes to the proposal in order to simplify the
regulatory text.
This final rule provides the following:
Section 1208.100 will provide that the definitions for this subpart
are the same as those prescribed in Sec. 1208.1 through 1208.24 of the
Order.
Section 1208.150 will provide for the postponement of the payment
of assessments under certain circumstances. Section 1208.55 of the
Order states that ``The Council may grant a postponement of an
assessment under this subpart for any qualified handler that
establishes that it is financially unable to make the payment * * *''
In addition, the Order establishes that the Council shall develop forms
and procedures for a qualified handler to request and for the Council
to grant the postponement of the payment of assessments.
Under these regulations, the period for which the initial
postponement of the payment of assessments is requested may not exceed
six (6) months. If the postponement is granted, the qualified handler
will be exempt from paying assessments beginning with the first month
for which the request for postponement is filed with the Council and
for no more than six (6) months unless an extension is requested and
granted by the Council. Only one extension may be granted for the
postponement period. The qualified handler will be required to file
monthly reports during the postponement period and any extension. The
handler must provide a reason for the request as well as detailed
information concerning the handler's name, address, telephone and fax
numbers, the month(s) for which the request is made, the amount of
assessments due or gross sales per month, the percent or amount of the
outstanding debt to be paid by month after the postponement of payment
is granted, and the starting and ending date for the payment.
The request must be made no later than 30 days after the first
month's assessment of the requested postponement period is due.
Applications postmarked after the 30-day deadline will not be
considered by the Council. In addition, after the postponement period
has concluded, the handler must pay the percentage or amount of the
outstanding assessments agreed upon each month as well as any other
assessments which are due. Assessments due after the initial
postponement period is over will not be postponed further unless an
extension of time to pay such assessment is granted. If an extension of
time is requested, new documentation must be provided for the Council
to determine whether to grant the request. The same procedures used for
the initial postponement request must be followed in requesting an
extension. The extension may not exceed six (6) months. In addition, a
qualified handler may request a second period of postponement of the
payment of the assessments of no more than six (6) months. The same
procedures followed for requesting the first postponement period must
be used. However, the second postponement period may not be extended.
The qualified handler may request the postponement of the payment of
the assessments for a maximum of two periods only. No additional
postponements would be considered by the Council until the assessments
owed for the first two periods have been paid.
The following example will serve to further explain and clarify
this rule. If a qualified handler wants to postpone the payment of
assessments due on cut flowers and greens handled during the months of
January through June 1997, the request for the postponement must be
filed with the Council's office no later than April 30, 1997. April 30
is 30 days after the assessments on cut flowers and greens handled
during January 1997 would be due (March 31, 1997). If the request is
granted, the handler would not have to pay assessments to the Council
in the months of March through August 1997. The first payment on
handlings during January through June 1997 would be due no later than
September 30, 1997. Payments would be made pursuant to a schedule
agreed upon between the handler and the Council.
If the same handler wants to extend the postponement period for an
additional six (6) months, the request must be submitted to the
Council's office no later than the date the first payment was due or,
in this case, no later than September 30, 1997. If the extension is
granted, the deadline for the first payment of the assessments on
January through June 1997 handlings would be on March 31, 1998.
Therefore, in March 1998, the qualified handler would be required to
pay (1) the agreed upon amount of the assessments due on cut flowers
and greens handled in January 1997 as well as (2) the total amount due
in March 1998 for cut flowers and greens handled in January 1998.
If the qualified handler also wants to postpone the assessments due
on cut flowers and greens handled during the months of July through
December 1997, the handler must make that request no later than October
31, 1997, the date 30 days after the assessments on cut flowers and
greens handled in July 1997 would be due. If the request is granted,
the deadline for the first payment of the assessments on cut flowers
and greens handled in July through December 1997 would be March 31,
1998. And, during March 1998, the handler would be required to pay (1)
at least 50 percent of the assessments on cut flowers and greens
handled in January 1997; (2) the entire assessments due on cut flowers
and greens handled in July 1997; and (3) the total assessments due for
cut flowers and greens handled in January 1998.
The Council may conduct an audit of the qualified handler's books
and records at any time to determine whether the qualified handler will
be unable to continue to operate if the handler is required to pay the
assessments when due.
Any late payment will make the postponement null and all
assessments due will need to be paid in their entirety
[[Page 30501]]
at that time. In addition, the Council agrees to forgo any late fee
charges and interest for the duration of the postponement of the
payment of assessments.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found
that this regulation, as set forth herein, tends to effectuate the
declared policy of the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined that good
cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this action until
30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) This
rule establishes rules and regulations in accordance with the
provisions of the Act; (2) the Council has received requests for the
postponement of the payment of assessments and needs rules to
administer the postponement process; and (3) no useful purpose will be
served in delaying the effective date until 30 days after publication
of this final rule.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1208
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Consumer
information, Marketing agreements, Cut flowers, Cut greens, Promotion,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR Part 1208 is
amended as follows:
PART 1208--FRESH CUT FLOWERS AND FRESH CUT GREENS PROMOTION AND
INFORMATION ORDER
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR Part 1208 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.
2. In Part 1208 a new Subpart B is added to read as follows:
Subpart B--Rules and Regulations
Definitions
Sec.
1208.100 Terms defined.
Assessments
1208.150 Procedures for postponement of assessments.
Subpart B--Rules and Regulations
Definitions
Sec. 1208.100 Terms defined.
Unless otherwise defined in this subpart, definitions or terms used
in this subpart shall have the same meaning as the definitions of such
terms which appear in Subpart A--Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens
Promotion and Information Order of this part.
Assessments
Sec. 1208.150 Procedures for postponement of collections.
(a) For a request for postponement of the payment of assessments to
be granted, the qualified handler requesting such postponement must:
Submit a written opinion from a Certified Public Accountant stating
that the handler making the request is insolvent or will be unable to
continue to operate if the handler is required to pay the assessments
when due; and submit copies of the handler's last three (3) years'
federal tax returns. The request must be in writing no later than 30
days after the assessment for the first month of the requested
postponement period is due. Applications postmarked after the 30-day
due date will not be considered by the Council. The qualified handler
must file handler reports with the Council for each month during the
postponement period. The postponement period may not exceed six (6)
months unless an extension is requested and granted by the Council.
Only one extension of up to six (6) months may be granted. Within the
postponement period, the qualified handler will be exempt from paying
assessments beginning with the first month for which the request for
postponement is filed with the Council and for no more than six (6)
months unless an extension is granted. The same procedures used for the
initial request will be used to grant any extension. The written
request must specify:
(1) a reason for the request;
(2) detailed information concerning the qualified handler's name,
address, and telephone and fax numbers;
(3) the month(s) for which the request is made;
(4) assessments due per month or gross sales per month;
(5) total assessments due;
(6) the percent or amount of the outstanding assessment to be paid
each month after the postponement of payment is granted; and
(7) the starting and ending date for the payment of assessments
due.
(b) At the end of the postponement period, the qualified handler
must pay the percent or amount outstanding of assessments agreed upon
each month as well as any other assessments which are due. An extension
of time for payment of postponed assessments, if granted, will be for
the same months previously requested and granted. The extension must
not exceed six (6) months. If a qualified handler requests that another
period be postponed, that handler must file another application for the
postponement of the assessment for the second period using the same
procedure which was followed in requesting the first postponement. A
qualified handler may request the postponement of the payment of
assessments for a maximum of two periods of up to six (6) months each.
The payment applicable to the second postponement period, if granted,
may not be extended, and the payment period must not exceed the length
of the postponement period. Payment of the total assessments due, when
an extension and a second period are granted, must begin within one (1)
year after the first postponed month's assessments were originally due.
No additional postponements would be considered by the Council until
the assessments owed for the first two periods have been paid. The
Council may conduct an audit of the qualified handler's records at any
time to determine whether the qualified handler will be unable to
continue to operate if the handler is required to pay the assessments
due. In the event that postponed assessments are not paid when due, the
Council can demand that all such assessments due be paid in their
entirety.
(c) Charges for late payment of assessments as described in
Sec. 1208.52 will not be imposed on assessments for which postponement
of payment has been granted.
Dated: June 7, 1996.
Robert C. Keeney,
Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-15092 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15032 National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30509-30531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15032]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 30510]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-5520-2]
National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (``CERCLA'' or ``the Act''), as amended, requires
that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (``NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List
(``NPL'') constitutes this list.
This rule adds 13 new sites to the General Superfund Section of the
NPL. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the Environmental
Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``the Agency'') in determining which
sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of
public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to
determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be
appropriate.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date for this amendment to the NCP shall
be July 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: For addresses for the Headquarters and Regional dockets, as
well as further details on what these dockets contain, see
``Information Available to the Public'' in Section I of the
``Supplementary Information'' portion of this preamble.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Keidan, State and Site
Identification Center, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (mail
code 5204G), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC, 20460, or the Superfund Hotline, phone (800) 424-9346
or (703) 412-9810 in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
II. Contents of This Final Rule
III. Executive Order 12866
IV. Unfunded Mandates
V. Governors' Concurrence
VI. Effects on Small Businesses
VII. CERCLA Section 305
I. Introduction
Background
In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (``CERCLA'' or
``the Act''), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (``SARA''), Pub. L. No. 99-499,
stat. 1613 et seq. To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the revised
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(``NCP''), 40 CFR part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to
CERCLA section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20,
1981). The NCP sets forth the guidelines and procedures needed to
respond under CERCLA to releases and threatened releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants. EPA has revised the NCP on
several occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March
8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).
Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA requires that the NCP include
``criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened
releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking
remedial action * * * and, to the extent practicable taking into
account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking
removal action.'' ``Removal'' actions are defined broadly and include a
wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise
address releases and threatened releases. 42 U.S.C. 9601(23).
``Remedial'' actions'' are those ``consistent with permanent remedy,
taken instead of or in addition to removal actions * * *.'' 42 U.S.C.
9601(24).
Pursuant to section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, EPA
has promulgated a list of national priorities among the known or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States. That list, which is appendix
B of 40 CFR part 300, is the National Priorities List (``NPL'').
CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of
``releases'' and as a list of the highest priority ``facilities.''
CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) also requires that the NPL be revised at
least annually. A site may undergo remedial action financed by the
Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the
``Superfund'') only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the
NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1). However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2)
placing a site on the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be
expended.'' EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to remedy the
releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.
The purpose of the NPL is merely to identify releases that are
priorities for further evaluation. Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is
broadly defined to include any area where a hazardous substance release
has ``come to be located'' (CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process
itself is not intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such
facilities or releases.
Further, the NPL is only of limited significance, as it does not
assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property.
See Report of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Senate Rep. No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 (1980), quoted above
and at 48 FR 40659 (September 8, 1983). If a party does not believe it
is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property, supporting
information can be submitted to the Agency at any time after a party
receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.
Three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial
action are included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c). Under 40 CFR
300.425(c)(1), a site may be included on the NPL if it scores
sufficiently high on the Hazard Ranking System (``HRS''), which EPA
promulgated as appendix A of 40 CFR part 300. On December 14, 1990 (55
FR 51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to
CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four
pathways: ground water, surface water, soil exposure, and air. The HRS
serves as a screening device to evaluate the relative potential of
uncontrolled hazardous substances to pose a threat to human health or
the environment. As a matter of Agency policy, those sites that score
28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL.
Under a second mechanism for adding sites to the NPL, each State
may designate a single site as its top priority, regardless of the HRS
score. This mechanism, provided by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2),
requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include within the
100 highest priorities, one facility designated by each State
representing the greatest danger to public health, welfare, or the
environment among known facilities in the State.
The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be
[[Page 30511]]
listed regardless of their HRS score, if all of the following
conditions are met:
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health
advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the
release.
EPA determines that the release poses a significant
threat to public health.
EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to
use its remedial authority (available only at NPL sites) than to use
its removal authority to respond to the release.
EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983
(48 FR 40658). The NPL has been expanded since then, most recently on
September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50435).
The NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are evaluated and
cleaned up by EPA (the ``General Superfund Section''), and one of sites
being addressed generally by other Federal agencies (the ``Federal
Facilities Section''). Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January
29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each Federal agency is responsible
for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own
jurisdiction, custody, or control, although EPA is responsible for
preparing an HRS score and determining whether the facility is placed
on the NPL. EPA is not the lead agency at these sites, and its role at
such sites is accordingly less extensive than at other sites. The
Federal Facilities Section includes facilities at which EPA is not the
lead agency.
Site Boundaries
The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms;
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of
the NPL (as the mere identification of releases), for it to do so.
CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) directs EPA to list national priorities
among the known ``releases or threatened releases.'' Thus, the purpose
of the NPL is merely to identify releases that are priorities for
further evaluation. Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined
to include any area where a hazardous substance release has ``come to
be located'' (CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not
intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or
releases. Of course, HRS data upon which the NPL placement was based
will, to some extent, describe which release is at issue. That is, the
NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS
analysis (including noncontiguous releases evaluated under the NPL
aggregation policy, described at 48 FR 40663 (September 8, 1983)).
When a site is listed, it is necessary to define the release (or
releases) encompassed within the listing. The approach generally used
is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within the
installation or plant boundaries) and define the site by reference to
that area. As a legal matter, the site is not coextensive with that
area, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not the
``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists of all
contaminated areas within the area used to define the site, and any
other location to which contamination from that area has come to be
located.
While geographic terms are often used to designate the site (e.g.,
the ``Jones Co. plant site'') in terms of the property owned by the
particular party, the site properly understood is not limited to that
property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant
migration), and conversely may not occupy the full extent of the
property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified
property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of the ``site'').
The ``site'' is thus neither equal to nor confined by the boundaries of
any specific property that may give the site its name, and the name
itself should not be read to imply that this site is coextensive with
the entire area within the property boundary of the facility or plant.
The precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at
the time of listing. Also, the site name is merely used to help
identify the geographic location of the contamination. For example, the
``Jones Co. plant site,'' does not imply that the Jones company is
responsible for the contamination located on the plant site.
EPA regulations provide that the ``nature and extent of the threat
presented by a release'' will be determined by a Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) as more information is
developed on site contamination (40 CFR 300.430(d)). During the RI/FS
process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was
originally thought, as more is learned about the source and the
migration of the contamination. However, this inquiry focuses on an
evaluation of the threat posed; the boundaries of the release need not
be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover
the full extent of where the contamination ``has come to be located''
before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site.
Indeed, the boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change
over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the
boundaries of a release with absolute certainty.
For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended if further research
into the extent of the contamination expands the apparent boundaries of
the release. Further, the NPL is only of limited significance, as it
does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific
property. See Report of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works, Senate Rep. No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 (1980), quoted
above and at 48 FR 40659 (September 8, 1983). If a party does not
believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property,
supporting information can be submitted to the Agency at any time after
a party receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.
Deletions/Cleanups
EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is
appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(e). To date, the Agency has deleted 108 sites from the NPL.
EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list
(``CCL'') to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better
communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR
12142, March 2, 1993). Sites qualify for the CCL when:
(1) Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not
final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved;
(2) EPA has determined that the response action should be limited
to measures that do not involve construction (e.g., institutional
controls); or
(3) The site qualifies for deletion from the NPL. Inclusion of a
site on the CCL has no legal significance.
In addition to the 102 sites that have been deleted from the NPL
because they have been cleaned up (6 sites have been deleted based on
deferral to other authorities and are not considered cleaned up), an
additional 251 sites are also in the NPL CCL. Thus, as of June 1996,
the CCL consists of 353 sites.
Action In This Notice
This final rule adds 13 sites to the General Superfund Section of
the NPL. Nine of these sites are added to the NPL based on an HRS score
of 28.5 or greater, three are added based on ATSDR Health Advisory
Criteria, and one is added based on its designation as a State top
priority. This action results in an NPL of 1,227 sites, 1,073 in the
General Superfund Section and 154 in the Federal Facilities Section.
With the action of a proposed rule published
[[Page 30512]]
elsewhere in today's Federal Register, an additional 52 sites are
proposed and are awaiting final agency action, 45 in the General
Superfund Section and 7 in the Federal Facilities Section. Final and
proposed sites now total 1,279.
Information Available to the Public
The Headquarters and Regional public dockets for the NPL contain
documents relating to the evaluation and scoring of the sites in this
final rule. The dockets are available for viewing, by appointment only,
after the appearance of this notice. The hours of operation for the
Headquarters docket are from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. Please contact the Regional Docket for
hours.
Addresses and phone numbers for the Headquarters and Regional
dockets follow:
Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office,
Crystal Gateway #1, 1st Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, VA, 703/603-8917, (Please note this is viewing address
only. Do not mail documents to this address.)
Jim Kyed, Region 1, U.S. EPA Waste Management Records Center, HRC-
CAN-7, J.F. Kennedy Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203-2211, 617/
573-9656
Ben Conetta, Region 2, U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-
1866, 212/637-4435
Diane McCreary, Region 3, U.S. EPA Library, 3rd Floor, 841 Chestnut
Building, 9th & Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19107, 215/566-
5250
Kathy Piselli, Region 4, U.S. EPA, 345 Courtland Street, NE,
Atlanta, GA 30365 404/347-4216
Cathy Freeman, Region 5, U.S. EPA, Records Center, Waste Management
Division 7-J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, IL 60604, 312/886-6214
Bart Canellas, Region 6, U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Mail Code 6H-
MA, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, 214/655-6740
Carole Long, Region 7, U.S. EPA, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City,
KS 66101, 913/551-7224
Greg Oberley, Region 8, U.S. EPA, 999 18th Street, Suite 500,
Denver, CO 80202-2466, 303/294-7598
Rachel Loftin, Region 9, U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105, 415/744-2347
David Bennett, Region 10, U.S. EPA, 11th Floor, 1200 6th Avenue,
Mail Stop HW-114, Seattle, WA 98101, 206/553-2103
For the sites added to the NPL based on an HRS score of 28.5 or
greater, the Headquarters docket for this rule contains HRS score
sheets for the final sites; Documentation Records for the sites
describing the information used to compute the scores; pertinent
information regarding statutory requirements or EPA listing policies
that affect the sites; and a list of documents referenced in each of
the Documentation Records. For the sites being listed based on ATSDR
Health Advisory criteria, the Headquarters docket contains the health
advisory issued by ATSDR and other supporting documentation. For the
site being listed based on its designation as a State top priority, the
docket contains supporting documentation from the State. For all of the
final sites, the Headquarters docket contains comments received; and
the Agency's responses to those comments. The Agency's responses are
contained in the ``Support Document for the Revised National Priorities
List Final Rule--June 1996.''
A general discussion of the statutory requirements affecting NPL
listing, the purpose and implementation of the NPL, the economic
impacts of NPL listing, and the analysis required under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act is included as part of the Headquarters rulemaking
docket in the ``Additional Information'' document.
The Regional docket contains all the information in the
Headquarters docket, plus the actual reference documents containing the
data principally relied upon by EPA in calculating or evaluating the
HRS score, when the HRS is used, for the sites. These reference
documents are available only in the Regional dockets.
Interested parties may view documents, by appointment only, in the
Headquarters or Regional Dockets, or copies may be requested from the
Headquarters or Regional Dockets. An informal written request, rather
than a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be
the ordinary procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents.
If you wish to obtain documents by mail from EPA Headquarters Docket,
the mailing address is as follows:
Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office
(Mail Code 5201G), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, 703/603-
8917 (Please note this is the mailing address only. If you wish to
visit the HQ Docket to view documents, see viewing address above.)
Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of
1996, EPA submitted a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and
the Comptroller General of the General Accounting Office prior to
publication of the rule in today's Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by section 804(2) of the APA as amended.
II. Contents of This Final Rule
This notice promulgates final rules to add 13 sites to the General
Superfund Section of the NPL (Table 1). The following table presents
the sites in this rule arranged alphabetically by State and identifies
their rank by group number. Group numbers are determined by arranging
the NPL by rank and dividing it into groups of 50 sites. For example, a
site in Group 4 has a score that falls within the range of scores
covered by the fourth group of 50 sites on the NPL.
National Priorities List Final Rule--General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/County Group
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA............................... LCP Chemicals Georgia............ Brunswick........................ NA
IL............................... Jennison-Wright Corporation...... Granite City..................... 12
KS............................... Wright Ground Water Contamination Wright........................... 5/6
ME............................... Eastern Surplus.................. Meddybemps....................... 5/6
MI............................... Aircraft Components (D&L Sales).. Benton Harbor.................... NA
MI............................... H & K Sales...................... Belding.......................... NA
NE............................... Bruno Co-op Association/ Bruno............................ 5/6
Associated Properties.
NJ............................... Franklin Burn.................... Franklin Township................ 12
NJ............................... Welsbach & General Gas Mantle Camden & Gloucester Cities....... 12
(Camden Radiation).
NY............................... Little Valley.................... Little Valley.................... NA
PA............................... Breslube-Penn Inc................ Coraopolis....................... 5/6
VI............................... Island Chemical Corp/Virgin St. Croix........................ 5/6
Islands Chemical Corp.
[[Page 30513]]
WI............................... Penta Wood Products.............. Daniels.......................... 5/6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of sites listed: 13.
Public Comments
EPA reviewed all comments received on sites included in this
notice. Based on comments received on the proposed sites, as well as
investigation by EPA and the States (generally in response to comment),
EPA recalculated the HRS scores for individual sites where appropriate.
EPA's response to site-specific public comments and explanations of any
score changes made as a result of such comments are addressed in the
``Support Document for the Revised National Priorities List Final
Rule--June 1996.''
III. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
IV. Unfunded Mandates
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. When a written statement is needed for an EPA rule, section
205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, giving
them meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising them on compliance with the
regulatory requirements. Today's rule contains no Federal mandates
(within the meaning of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. Nor does it contain any
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This is because today's listing decision does not
impose any enforceable duties upon any of these governmental entities
or the private sector. Inclusion of a site on the NPL does not itself
impose any costs. It does not establish that EPA necessarily will
undertake remedial action, nor does it require any action by a private
party or determine its liability for site response costs. Costs that
arise out of site responses result from site-by-site decisions about
what actions to take, not directly from the act of listing itself.
Therefore, today's rulemaking is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202, 203 or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act.
V. Governor's Concurrence
On May 2, 1996, Congress enacted the Omnibus Consolidated
Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 Public Law (Pub. L.) 104-
134, which established federal government spending limitations for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1996. Pub. L. 104-134 provides that
EPA may not use funds made available for fiscal year 1996 ``to propose
for listing or to list any additional facilities on the National
Priorities List * * * unless the Administrator receives a written
request to propose for listing or to list a facility from the Governor
of the State in which the facility is located * * *.'' EPA has received
letters from the appropriate governors requesting that the Agency list
on the NPL all the facilities in this rule. These letters are available
in the docket for this rulemaking.
VI. Effect on Small Businesses
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires EPA to review the
impacts of this action on small entities, or certify that the action
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities. By small entities, the Act refers to small businesses, small
government jurisdictions, and nonprofit organizations.
While this rule revises the NPL, an NPL revision is not a typical
regulatory change since it does not automatically impose costs. As
stated above, adding sites to the NPL does not in itself require any
action by any party, nor does it determine the liability of any party
for the cost of cleanup at the site. Further, no identifiable groups
are affected as a whole. As a consequence, impacts on any group are
hard to predict. A site's inclusion on the NPL could increase the
likelihood of adverse impacts on responsible parties (in the form of
cleanup costs), but at this time EPA cannot identify the potentially
affected businesses or estimate the number of small businesses that
might also be affected.
The Agency does expect that placing the sites in this rule on the
NPL could significantly affect certain industries, or firms within
industries, that have caused a proportionately high percentage of waste
site problems. However, EPA does not expect the listing of these sites
to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
businesses.
In any case, economic impacts would occur only through enforcement
and cost-recovery actions, which EPA takes at its discretion on a site-
by-site basis. EPA considers many factors when determining enforcement
actions, including not only a firm's contribution to the problem, but
also its ability to pay. The impacts (from cost recovery) on small
governments and nonprofit organizations would be determined on a
similar case-by-case basis.
For the foregoing reasons, I hereby certify that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Therefore, this regulation does not require a regulatory
flexibility analysis.
VII. CERCLA Section 305
CERCLA section 305 provides for a legislative veto of regulations
promulgated under CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,103 S.
Ct.
[[Page 30514]]
2764 (1983) cast the validity of the legislative veto into question,
EPA has transmitted a copy of this regulation to the Secretary of the
Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
If action by Congress calls the effective date of this regulation
into question, EPA will publish a clarification in the Federal
Register.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous materials, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources,
Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund,
Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control, Water supply.
Dated: June 6, 1996.
Elliott P. Laws,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
PART 300--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
2. Appendix B to part 300 is revised to read as set forth below:
Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List
Table 1.--General Superfund Section, June 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county Notes(a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK............... Alaska Battery Fairbanks N Star C
Enterprises. Borough.
AK............... Arctic Surplus....... Fairbanks ........
AL............... Ciba-Geigy Corp. McIntosh ........
(McIntosh Plant).
AL............... Interstate Lead Co. Leeds ........
(ILCO).
AL............... Olin Corp. (McIntosh McIntosh ........
Plant).
AL............... Perdido Ground Water Perdido............. C
Contamination.
AL............... Redwing Carriers, Saraland
Inc. (Saraland).
AL............... Stauffer Chemical Co. Bucks ........
(Cold Creek Plant).
AL............... Stauffer Chemical Co. Axis ........
(LeMoyne Plant).
AL............... T.H. Agriculture & Montgomery ........
Nutrition
(Montgomery).
AL............... Triana/Tennessee Limestone/Morgan.... C
River.
AR............... Arkwood, Inc......... Omaha ........
AR............... Frit Industries...... Walnut Ridge ........
AR............... Gurley Pit........... Edmondson........... C
AR............... Industrial Waste Fort Smith.......... C
Control.
AR............... Jacksonville Jacksonville........ C
Municipal Landfill.
AR............... Mid-South Wood Mena................ C
Products.
AR............... Midland Products..... Ola/Birta........... C
AR............... Monroe Auto Equipment Paragould ........
(Paragould Pit).
AR............... Popile, Inc.......... El Dorado ........
AR............... Rogers Road Municipal Jacksonville........ C
Landfill.
AR............... South 8th Street West Memphis ........
Landfill.
AR............... Vertac, Inc.......... Jacksonville ........
AZ............... Apache Powder Co..... St. David ........
AZ............... Hassayampa Landfill.. Hassayampa ........
AZ............... Indian Bend Wash Area Scottsdale/Tempe/ ........
Phoenix
AZ............... Litchfield Airport Goodyear/Avondale ........
Area.
AZ............... Motorola, Inc. (52nd Phoenix ........
Street Plant).
AZ............... Nineteenth Avenue Phoenix ........
Landfill.
AZ............... Tucson International Tucson ........
Airport Area.
CA............... Advanced Micro Sunnyvale........... C
Devices, Inc.
CA............... Advanced Micro Sunnyvale........... C
Devices, Inc. (Bldg.
915).
CA............... Aerojet General Corp. Rancho Cordova ........
CA............... Applied Materials.... Santa Clara......... C
CA............... Atlas Asbestos Mine.. Fresno County ........
CA............... Beckman Instruments Porterville......... C
(Porterville Plant).
CA............... Brown & Bryant, Inc. Arvin ........
(Arvin Plant).
CA............... CTS Printex, Inc..... Mountain View....... C
CA............... Celtor Chemical Works Hoopa............... C
CA............... Coalinga Asbestos Coalinga............ C
Mine.
CA............... Coast Wood Preserving Ukiah ........
CA............... Crazy Horse Sanitary Salinas ........
Landfill.
CA............... Del Norte Pesticide Crescent City....... C
Storage.
CA............... Fairchild Mountain View ........
Semiconductor Corp
(Mt View).
CA............... Fairchild South San Jose...... C
Semiconductor Corp
(S San Jose).
CA............... Firestone Tire & Salinas............. C
Rubber Co. (Salinas
Plant).
CA............... Fresno Municipal Fresno ........
Sanitary Landfill.
CA............... Frontier Fertilizer.. Davis ........
CA............... Hewlett-Packard (620- Palo Alto ........
640 Page Mill Road).
CA............... Industrial Waste Fresno ........
Processing.
CA............... Intel Corp. (Mountain Mountain View ........
View Plant).
CA............... Intel Corp. (Santa Santa Clara......... C
Clara III).
CA............... Intel Magnetics...... Santa Clara......... C
CA............... Intersil Inc./Siemens Cupertino........... C
Components.
CA............... Iron Mountain Mine... Redding ........
CA............... J.H. Baxter & Co..... Weed ........
CA............... Jasco Chemical Corp.. Mountain View ........
[[Page 30515]]
CA............... Koppers Co., Inc. Oroville ........
(Oroville Plant).
CA............... Liquid Gold Oil Corp. Richmond............ C
CA............... Lorentz Barrel & Drum San Jose
Co.
CA............... Louisiana-Pacific Oroville
Corp
CA............... MGM Brakes........... Cloverdale.......... C
CA............... McColl............... Fullerton
CA............... McCormick & Baxter Stockton
Creosoting Co.
CA............... Modesto Ground Water Modesto
Contamination.
CA............... Monolithic Memories.. Sunnyvale........... C
CA............... Montrose Chemical Torrance
Corp.
CA............... National Santa Clara
Semiconductor Corp.
CA............... Newmark Ground Water San Bernardino
Contamination.
CA............... Operating Industries, Monterey Park
Inc., Landfill.
CA............... Pacific Coast Pipe Fillmore
Lines.
CA............... Purity Oil Sales, Inc Malaga
CA............... Ralph Gray Trucking Westminster
Co.
CA............... Raytheon Corp........ Mountain View
CA............... San Fernando Valley Los Angeles
(Area 1).
CA............... San Fernando Valley Los Angeles/Glendale
(Area 2).
CA............... San Fernando Valley Glendale
(Area 3).
CA............... San Fernando Valley Los Angeles
(Area 4).
CA............... San Gabriel Valley El Monte
(Area 1).
CA............... San Gabriel Valley Baldwin Park Area
(Area 2).
CA............... San Gabriel Valley Alhambra
(Area 3).
CA............... San Gabriel Valley La Puente
(Area 4).
CA............... Selma Treating Co.... Selma
CA............... Sola Optical USA, Inc Petaluma............ C
CA............... South Bay Asbestos Alviso
Area.
CA............... Southern California Visalia
Edison Co. (Visalia).
CA............... Spectra-Physics, Inc. Mountain View....... C
CA............... Stringfellow......... Glen Avon Heights... S
CA............... Sulphur Bank Mercury Clear Lake
Mine.
CA............... Synertek, Inc. Santa Clara......... C
(Building 1).
CA............... T.H. Agriculture & Fresno
Nutrition Co.
CA............... TRW Microwave, Inc Sunnyvale........... C
(Building 825).
CA............... Teledyne Mountain View....... C
Semiconductor.
CA............... United Heckathorn Co. Richmond
CA............... Valley Wood Turlock
Preserving, Inc.
CA............... Waste Disposal, Inc.. Santa Fe Springs
CA............... Watkins-Johnson Co. Scotts Valley....... C
(Stewart Division).
CA............... Western Pacific Oroville
Railroad Co.
CA............... Westinghouse Electric Sunnyvale
Corp. (Sunnyvale).
CO............... Broderick Wood Denver
Products.
CO............... California Gulch..... Leadville
CO............... Central City-Clear Idaho Springs
Creek.
CO............... Chemical Sales Co.... Denver
CO............... Denver Radium Site... Denver
CO............... Eagle Mine........... Minturn/Redcliff
CO............... Lincoln Park......... Canon City
CO............... Lowry Landfill....... Arapahoe County
CO............... Marshall Landfill.... Boulder County...... C,S
CO............... Sand Creek Industrial Commerce City....... C
CO............... Smuggler Mountain.... Pitkin County
CO............... Summitville Mine..... Rio Grande County
CO............... Uravan Uranium Uravan
Project (Union
Carbide).
CT............... Barkhamsted-New Barkhamsted
Hartford Landfill.
CT............... Beacon Heights Beacon Falls
Landfill.
CT............... Cheshire Ground Water Cheshire
Contamination.
CT............... Durham Meadows....... Durham
CT............... Gallup's Quarry...... Plainfield
CT............... Kellogg-Deering Well Norwalk
Field.
CT............... Laurel Park, Inc..... Naugatuck Borough... S
CT............... Linemaster Switch Woodstock
Corp.
CT............... Nutmeg Valley Road... Wolcott
CT............... Old Southington Southington
Landfill.
CT............... Precision Plating Vernon
Corp.
CT............... Raymark Industries, Stratford........... A
Inc.
CT............... Solvents Recovery Southington
Service New England.
CT............... Yaworski Waste Lagoon Canterbury ........
DE............... Army Creek Landfill.. New Castle County... C
DE............... Chem-Solv, Inc....... Cheswold ........
DE............... Coker's Sanitation Kent County......... C
Service Landfills.
[[Page 30516]]
DE............... Delaware City PVC Delaware City ........
Plant.
DE............... Delaware Sand & New Castle County ........
Gravel Landfill.
DE............... Dover Gas Light Co... Dover ........
DE............... E.I.Du Pont de Newport ........
Nemours (Newport
Landfill
DE............... Halby Chemical Co.... New Castle ........
DE............... Harvey & Knott Drum, Kirkwood............ C
Inc.
DE............... Koppers Co., Inc. Newport ........
(Newport Plant).
DE............... NCR Corp. (Millsboro Millsboro ........
Plant).
DE............... New Castle Spill..... New Castle County... C
DE............... Sealand Limited...... Mount Pleasant...... C
DE............... Standard Chlorine of Delaware City ........
Delaware, Inc.
DE............... Sussex County Laurel.............. C
Landfill No. 5.
DE............... Tybouts Corner New Castle County... C,S
Landfill.
DE............... Tyler Refrigeration Smyrna ........
Pit.
DE............... Wildcat Landfill..... Dover............... C
FL............... Agrico Chemical Co... Pensacola ........
FL............... Airco Plating Co..... Miami ........
FL............... American Creosote Pensacola ........
Works (Pensacola
Plt).
FL............... Anaconda Aluminum Co./ Miami............... C
Milgo Electronics.
FL............... Anodyne, Inc......... North Miami Beach ........
FL............... B&B Chemical Co., Inc Hialeah............. C
FL............... BMI-Textron.......... Lake Park........... C
FL............... Beulah Landfill...... Pensacola........... C
FL............... Cabot/Koppers........ Gainesville ........
FL............... Chemform, Inc........ Pompano Beach....... C
FL............... Chevron Chemical Co. Orlando ........
(Ortho Division).
FL............... City Industries, Inc. Orlando............. C
FL............... Coleman-Evans Wood Whitehouse ........
Preserving Co.
FL............... Davie Landfill....... Davie............... C
FL............... Dubose Oil Products Cantonment.......... C
Co.
FL............... Escambia Wood-- Pensacola ........
Pensacola.
FL............... Florida Steel Corp... Indiantown ........
FL............... Gold Coast Oil Corp.. Miami............... C
FL............... Harris Corp. (Palm Palm Bay ........
Bay Plant).
FL............... Helena Chemical Co. Tampa ........
(Tampa Plant).
FL............... Hipps Road Landfill.. Duval County........ C
FL............... Hollingsworth Fort Lauderdale..... C
Solderless Terminal.
FL............... Kassauf-Kimerling Tampa ........
Battery Disposal.
FL............... Madison County Madison ........
Sanitary Landfill.
FL............... Miami Drum Services.. Miami............... C
FL............... Munisport Landfill... North Miami ........
FL............... Northwest 58th Street Hialeah............. C
Landfill.
FL............... Peak Oil Co./Bay Drum Tampa ........
Co.
FL............... Pepper Steel & Medley.............. C
Alloys, Inc.
FL............... Petroleum Products Pembroke Park ........
Corp.
FL............... Pickettville Road Jacksonville ........
Landfill.
FL............... Piper Aircraft/Vero Vero Beach ........
Beach Water & Sewer.
FL............... Reeves Southeast Tampa ........
Galvanizing Corp.
FL............... Sapp Battery Salvage. Cottondale ........
FL............... Schuylkill Metals Plant City ........
Corp.
FL............... Sherwood Medical Deland ........
Industries.
FL............... Sixty-Second Street Tampa............... C
Dump.
FL............... Standard Auto Bumper Hialeah............. C
Corp.
FL............... Stauffer Chemical Co. Tarpon Springs ........
(Tarpon Springs).
FL............... Sydney Mine Sludge Brandon ........
Ponds.
FL............... Taylor Road Landfill. Seffner ........
FL............... Tower Chemical Co.... Clermont ........
FL............... Whitehouse Oil Pits.. Whitehouse ........
FL............... Wingate Road Fort Lauderdale ........
Municipal
Incinerator Dump.
FL............... Yellow Water Road Baldwin ........
Dump.
FL............... Zellwood Ground Water Zellwood ........
Contamination.
GA............... Cedartown Industries, Cedartown ........
Inc.
GA............... Cedartown Municipal Cedartown
Landfill.
GA............... Diamond Shamrock Cedartown........... C
Corp. Landfill.
GA............... Firestone Tire & Albany
Rubber Co (Albany
Plant).
GA............... Hercules 009 Landfill Brunswick
GA............... LCP Chemicals Georgia Brunswick........... S
GA............... Marzone Inc./Chevron Tifton
Chemical Co.
GA............... Mathis Brothers Kensington
Landfill.
GA............... Monsanto Corp. Augusta............. C
(Augusta Plant).
GA............... Powersville Site..... Peach County........ C
GA............... T.H. Agriculture & Albany
Nutrition (Albany).
[[Page 30517]]
GA............... Woolfolk Chemical Fort Valley
Works, Inc.
GU............... Ordot Landfill....... Guam................ C,S
HI............... Del Monte Corp. (Oahu Honolulu County
Plantation).
IA............... Des Moines TCE....... Des Moines
IA............... Electro-Coatings, Inc Cedar Rapids
IA............... Fairfield Coal Fairfield........... C
Gasification Plant.
IA............... Farmers' Mutual Hospers
Cooperative.
IA............... John Deere (Ottumwa Ottumwa............. C
Works Landfills).
IA............... Lawrence Todtz Farm.. Camanche............ C
IA............... Mason City Coal Mason City
Gasification Plant.
IA............... Mid-America Tanning Sergeant Bluff
Co.
IA............... Midwest Manufacturing/ Kellogg
North Farm.
IA............... Peoples Natural Gas Dubuque
Co.
IA............... Red Oak City Landfill Red Oak
IA............... Shaw Avenue Dump..... Charles City
IA............... Sheller-Globe Corp. Keokuk
Disposal.
IA............... Vogel Paint & Wax Co. Orange City......... C
IA............... White Farm Equipment Charles City........ C
Co. Dump.
ID............... Bunker Hill Mining & Smelterville
Metallurgical.
ID............... Eastern Michaud Flats Pocatello
Contamination.
ID............... Kerr-McGee Chemical Soda Springs
Corp. (Soda Springs).
ID............... Monsanto Chemical Co. Soda Springs
(Soda Springs).
ID............... Pacific Hide & Fur Pocatello
Recycling Co.
ID............... Union Pacific Pocatello
Railroad Co.
IL............... A & F Material Greenup............. C
Reclaiming, Inc.
IL............... Acme Solvent Morristown
Reclaiming
(Morristown Plant).
IL............... Adams County Quincy Quincy
Landfills 2 & 3.
IL............... Amoco Chemicals Joliet
(Joliet Landfill).
IL............... Beloit Corp.......... Rockton
IL............... Belvidere Municipal Belvidere........... C
Landfill.
IL............... Byron Salvage Yard... Byron
IL............... Central Illinois Taylorville......... C
Public Service Co.
IL............... Cross Brothers Pail Pembroke Township
Recycling (Pembroke).
IL............... DuPage County Warrenville
Landfill/Blackwell
Forest.
IL............... Galesburg/Koppers Co. Galesburg
IL............... H.O.D. Landfill...... Antioch
IL............... Ilada Energy Co...... East Cape Girardeau
IL............... Interstate Pollution Rockford
Control, Inc.
IL............... Jennison-Wright Granite City
Corporation.
IL............... Johns-Manville Corp.. Waukegan............ C
IL............... Kerr-McGee (Kress DuPage County
Creek/W Branch
DuPage).
IL............... Kerr-McGee (Reed- West Chicago
Keppler Park).
IL............... Kerr-McGee West Chicago/DuPage
(Residential Areas). County
IL............... Kerr-McGee (Sewage West Chicago
Treatment Plant).
IL............... LaSalle Electric LaSalle............. C
Utilities.
IL............... Lenz Oil Service, Inc Lemont
IL............... MIG/Dewane Landfill.. Belvidere
IL............... NL Industries/ Granite City........ C
Taracorp Lead
Smelter.
IL............... Ottawa Radiation Ottawa
Areas.
IL............... Outboard Marine Corp. Waukegan............ S
IL............... Pagel's Pit.......... Rockford
IL............... Parsons Casket Belvidere
Hardware Co.
IL............... Southeast Rockford Gd Rockford
Wtr Contamination.
IL............... Tri-County Landfill/ South Elgin
Waste Mgmt Illinois.
IL............... Velsicol Chemical Marshall............ C
Corp. (Illinois).
IL............... Wauconda Sand & Wauconda ........
Gravel.
IL............... Woodstock Municipal Woodstock ........
Landfill.
IL............... Yeoman Creek Waukegan ........
Landfill.
IN............... American Chemical Griffith ........
Service, Inc.
IN............... Bennett Stone Quarry Bloomington ........
IN............... Carter Lee Lumber Indianapolis........ C
Co..
IN............... Columbus Old Columbus............ C
Municipal Landfill
#1.
IN............... Conrail Rail Yard Elkhart ........
(Elkhart).
IN............... Continental Steel Kokomo ........
Corp.
IN............... Douglass Road/ Mishawaka ........
Uniroyal, Inc.,
Landfill.
IN............... Envirochem Corp..... Zionsville ........
IN............... Fisher-Calo......... LaPorte ........
IN............... Fort Wayne Reduction Fort Wayne.......... C
Dump.
IN............... Galen Myers Dump/ Osceola ........
Drum Salvage.
IN............... Himco Dump.......... Elkhart ........
IN............... Lake Sandy Jo (M&M Gary................ C
Landfill).
IN............... Lakeland Disposal Claypool ........
Service, Inc..
[[Page 30518]]
IN............... Lemon Lane Landfill. Bloomington ........
IN............... MIDCO I............. Gary ........
IN............... MIDCO II............ Gary ........
IN............... Main Street Well Elkhart............. C
Field.
IN............... Marion (Bragg) Dump. Marion ........
IN............... Neal's Dump Spencer ........
(Spencer).
IN............... Neal's Landfill Bloomington ........
(Bloomington).
IN............... Ninth Avenue Dump... Gary................ C
IN............... Northside Sanitary Zionsville ........
Landfill, Inc.
IN............... Prestolite Battery Vincennes ........
Division.
IN............... Reilly Tar & Chemical Indianapolis ........
(Indianapolis Plant).
IN............... Seymour Recycling Seymour............. C,S
Corp.
IN............... Southside Sanitary Indianapolis........ C
Landfill.
IN............... Tippecanoe Sanitary Lafayette ........
Landfill, Inc.
IN............... Tri-State Plating.... Columbus............ C
IN............... Waste, Inc., Landfill Michigan City ........
IN............... Wayne Waste Oil...... Columbia City....... C
IN............... Whiteford Sales & South Bend.......... C
Service/Nationalease.
KS............... 57th and North Wichita Heights ........
Broadway Streets
Site.
KS............... Ace Services......... Colby ........
KS............... Chemical Commodities, Olathe ........
Inc..
KS............... Cherokee County...... Cherokee County ........
KS............... Doepke Disposal Johnson County ........
(Holliday).
KS............... Obee Road............ Hutchinson ........
KS............... Pester Refinery Co... El Dorado ........
KS............... Strother Field Cowley County ........
Industrial Park.
KS............... Wright Ground Water Wright ........
Contamination.
KY............... Airco................ Calvert City ........
KY............... B.F. Goodrich........ Calvert City ........
KY............... Brantley Landfill.... Island ........
KY............... Caldwell Lace Leather Auburn.............. C
Co., Inc..
KY............... Distler Brickyard.... West Point.......... C
KY............... Distler Farm......... Jefferson County.... C
KY............... Fort Hartford Coal Olaton ........
Co. Stone Quarry.
KY............... General Tire & Rubber Mayfield............ C
(Mayfield Landfill).
KY............... Green River Disposal, Maceo ........
Inc..
KY............... Howe Valley Landfill. Howe Valley......... C
KY............... Maxey Flats Nuclear Hillsboro ........
Disposal.
KY............... National Electric Dayhoit ........
Coil/Cooper
Industries.
KY............... National Southwire Hawesville ........
Aluminum Co.
KY............... Red Penn Sanitation PeeWee Valley ........
Co. Landfill.
KY............... Smith's Farm......... Brooks ........
KY............... Tri-City Disposal Co. Shepherdsville ........
LA............... Agriculture Street New Orleans ........
Landfill.
LA............... American Creosote Winnfield ........
Works, Inc
(Winnfield).
LA............... Bayou Bonfouca....... Slidell ........
LA............... Bayou Sorrel Site.... Bayou Sorrel........ C
LA............... Cleve Reber.......... Sorrento ........
LA............... Combustion, Inc...... Denham Springs ........
LA............... D.L. Mud, Inc........ Abbeville ........
LA............... Dutchtown Treatment Ascension Parish ........
Plant.
LA............... Gulf Coast Vacuum Abbeville ........
Services.
LA............... Old Inger Oil Darrow.............. S
Refinery.
LA............... PAB Oil & Chemical Abbeville ........
Service, Inc..
LA............... Petro-Processors of Scotlandville ........
Louisiana Inc.
LA............... Southern Shipbuilding Slidell ........
MA............... Atlas Tack Corp...... Fairhaven ........
MA............... Baird & McGuire...... Holbrook ........
MA............... Blackburn & Union Walpole ........
Privileges.
MA............... Cannon Engineering Bridgewater......... C
Corp. (CEC).
MA............... Charles-George Tyngsborough
Reclamation Landfill.
MA............... Groveland Wells...... Groveland ........
MA............... Haverhill Municipal Haverhill ........
Landfill.
MA............... Hocomonco Pond....... Westborough
MA............... Industri-Plex........ Woburn ........
MA............... Iron Horse Park...... Billerica ........
MA............... New Bedford Site..... New Bedford......... S
MA............... Norwood PCBs......... Norwood ........
MA............... Nyanza Chemical Waste Ashland ........
Dump.
MA............... PSC Resources........ Palmer ........
MA............... Re-Solve, Inc........ Dartmouth ........
MA............... Rose Disposal Pit.... Lanesboro........... C
[[Page 30519]]
MA............... Salem Acres.......... Salem ........
MA............... Shpack Landfill...... Norton/Attleboro ........
MA............... Silresim Chemical Lowell ........
Corp.
MA............... Sullivan's Ledge..... New Bedford ........
MA............... W.R. Grace & Co Inc Acton ........
(Acton Plant).
MA............... Wells G&H............ Woburn ........
MD............... Bush Valley Landfill. Abingdon ........
MD............... Kane & Lombard Street Baltimore ........
Drums.
MD............... Limestone Road....... Cumberland ........
MD............... MId-Atlantic Wood Harmans............. C
Preservers, Inc.
MD............... Sand, Gravel & Stone. Elkton ........
MD............... Southern Maryland Hollywood........... ........
Wood Treating.
MD........
FR Doc. 96-15032 National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites
....... Spectron, Inc........ Elkton ........
MD............... Woodlawn County Woodlawn ........
Landfill.
ME............... Eastern Surplus...... Meddybemps ........
ME............... McKin Co............. Gray................ C
ME............... O'Connor Co.......... Augusta ........
ME............... Pinette's Salvage Washburn ........
Yard.
ME............... Saco Municipal Saco ........
Landfill.
ME............... Saco Tannery Waste Saco................ C
Pits.
ME............... Union Chemical Co., South Hope ........
Inc..
ME............... West Site/Hows Plymouth ........
Corners.
ME............... Winthrop Landfill.... Winthrop ........
MI............... Adam's Plating....... Lansing............. C
MI............... Aircraft Components Benton Harbor....... A
(D & L Sales).
MI............... Albion-Sheridan Albion ........
Township Landfill.
MI............... Allied Paper/Portage Kalamazoo ........
Ck/Kalamazoo River.
MI............... American Anodco, Inc. Ionia............... C
MI............... Auto Ion Chemicals, Kalamazoo........... C
Inc..
MI............... Avenue ``E'' Ground Traverse City ........
Water Contamination.
MI............... Barrels, Inc......... Lansing ........
MI............... Bendix Corp./Allied St. Joseph ........
Automotive.
MI............... Berlin & Farro....... Swartz Creek ........
MI............... Bofors Nobel, Inc.... Muskegon ........
MI............... Burrows Sanitation... Hartford............ C
MI............... Butterworth #2 Grand Rapids ........
Landfill.
MI............... Cannelton Industries, Saulte Saint Marie ........
Inc..
MI............... Carter Industrials, Detroit ........
Inc..
MI............... Chem Central......... Wyoming Township.... C
MI............... Clare Water Supply... Clare ........
MI............... Cliff/Dow Dump....... Marquette........... C
MDuell & Gardner. Dalton Township
Landfill.
MI............... Electrovoice......... Buchanan
MI............... Forest Waste Products Otisville
MI............... G&H Landfill......... Utica
MI............... Grand Traverse Greilickville....... C
Overall Supply Co.
MI............... Gratiot County St. Louis........... C,S
Landfill.
MI............... H & K Sales.......... Belding............. A
MI............... H. Brown Co., Inc.... Grand Rapids
MI............... Hedblum Industries... Oscoda.............. C
MI............... Hi-Mill Manufacturing Highland............ C
Co.
MI............... Ionia City Landfill.. Ionia
MI............... J & L Landfill....... Rochester Hills
MI............... K&L Avenue Landfill.. Oshtemo Township
MI............... Kaydon Corp.......... Muskegon
MI............... Kentwood Landfill.... Kentwood............ C
MI............... Kysor Industrial Corp Cadillac
MI............... Liquid Disposal, Inc. Utica
MI............... Lower Ecorse Creek Wyandotte........... A
Dump.
MI............... Mason County Landfill Pere Marquette Twp.. C
MI............... McGraw Edison Corp... Albion
MI............... Metamora Landfill.... Metamora
MI............... Michigan Disposal Kalamazoo
(Cork Street
Landfill).
MI............... Motor Wheel, Inc..... Lansing
MI............... Muskegon Chemical Co. Whitehall
MI............... North Bronson Bronson
Industrial Area.
MI............... Northernaire Plating. Cadillac
MI............... Novaco Industries.... Temperance.......... C
MI............... Organic Chemicals, Grandville
Inc.
MI............... Ott/Story/Cordova Dalton Township
Chemical Co.
MI............... Packaging Corp. of Filer City
America.
MI............... Parsons Chemical Grand Ledge
Works, Inc.
[[Page 30520]]
MI............... Peerless Plating Co.. Muskegon
MI............... Petoskey Municipal Petoskey
Well Field.
MI............... Rasmussen's Dump..... Green Oak Township.. C
MI............... Rockwell Allegan
International Corp.
(Allegan).
MI............... Rose Township Dump... Rose Township....... C
MI............... Roto-Finish Co., Inc. Kalamazoo
MI............... SCA Independent Muskegon Heights
Landfill.
MI............... Shiawassee River..... Howell
MI............... South Macomb Disposal Macomb Township
(Landfills 9 & 9A).
MI............... Southwest Ottawa Park Township....... C
County Landfill.
MI............... Sparta Landfill...... Sparta Township
MI............... Spartan Chemical Co.. Wyoming
MI............... Spiegelberg Landfill. Green Oak Township.. C
MI............... Springfield Township Davisburg
Dump.
MI............... State Disposal Grand Rapids
Landfill, Inc.
MI............... Sturgis Municipal Sturgis
Wells.
MI............... Tar Lake............. Mancelona Township
MI............... Thermo-Chem, Inc..... Muskegon
MI............... Torch Lake........... Houghton County
MI............... U.S. Aviex........... Howard Township..... C
MI............... Velsicol Chemical St. Louis........... C
Corp. (Michigan).
MI............... Verona Well Field.... Battle Creek
MI............... Wash King Laundry.... Pleasant Plains Twp
MI............... Waste Management of Holland
Michigan (Holland).
MN............... Agate Lake Scrapyard. Fairview Township... C
MN............... Arrowhead Refinery Co Hermantown
MN............... Baytown Township Baytown Township
Ground Water Plume.
MN............... Burlington Northern Brainerd/Baxter..... C
(Brainerd/Baxter).
MN............... FMC Corp. (Fridley Fridley............. C
Plant).
MN............... Freeway Sanitary Burnsville
Landfill.
MN............... General Mills/Henkel Minneapolis......... C
Corp.
MN............... Joslyn Manufacturing Brooklyn Center
& Supply Co.
MN............... Koppers Coke......... St. Paul
MN............... Kurt Manufacturing Co Fridley............. C
MN............... LaGrand Sanitary LaGrand Township.... C
Landfill.
MN............... Lehillier/Mankato Lehillier/Mankato... C
Site.
MN............... Long Prairie Ground Long Prairie ........
Water Contamination.
MN............... MacGillis & Gibbs/ New Brighton ........
Bell Lumber & Pole
Co.
MN............... NL Industries/ St. Louis Park ........
Taracorp/Golden Auto.
MN............... Nutting Truck & Faribault........... C
Caster Co.
MN............... Oak Grove Sanitary Oak Grove Township.. C
Landfill.
MN............... Oakdale Dump......... Oakdale............. C
MN............... Perham Arsenic Site.. Perham ........
MN............... Pine Bend Sanitary Dakota County....... C
Landfill.
MN............... Reilly Tar&Chem (St. St. Louis Park...... S
Louis Park Plant).
MN............... Ritari Post & Pole... Sebeka ........
MN............... South Andover Site... Andover............. C
MN............... St. Augusta Sanitary St. Augusta Township ........
Landfill/Engen Dump.
MN............... St. Louis River Site. St. Louis County ........
MN............... St. Regis Paper Co... Cass Lake ........
MN............... University Minnesota Rosemount........... C
(Rosemount Res Cen).
MN............... Waite Park Wells..... Waite Park ........
MN............... Waste Disposal Andover............. C
Engineering.
MN............... Whittaker Corp....... Minneapolis......... C
MN............... Windom Dump.......... Windom.............. C
MO............... Bee Cee Manufacturing Malden ........
Co.
MO............... Big River Mine Desloge ........
Tailings/St. Joe
Minerals.
MO............... Conservation Chemical Kansas City......... C
Co.
MO............... Ellisville Site...... Ellisville.......... S
MO............... Fulbright Landfill... Springfield......... C
MO............... Kem-Pest Laboratories Cape Girardeau ........
MO............... Lee Chemical......... Liberty............. C
MO............... Minker/Stout/Romaine Imperial ........
Creek.
MO............... Missouri Electric Cape Girardeau ........
Works.
MO............... Oronogo-Duenweg Jasper County ........
Mining Belt.
MO............... Quality Plating...... Sikeston ........
MO............... Shenandoah Stables... Moscow Mills ........
MO............... Solid State Circuits, Republic............ C
Inc.
MO............... St Louis Airport/HIS/ St. Louis County ........
Futura Coatings Co.
MO............... Syntex Facility...... Verona ........
MO............... Times Beach Site..... Times Beach ........
MO............... Valley Park TCE...... Valley Park ........
[[Page 30521]]
MO............... Westlake Landfill.... Bridgeton ........
MO............... Wheeling Disposal Amazonia............ C
Service Co. Landfill.
MS............... Newsom Brothers/Old Columbia ........
Reichhold Chemicals.
MT............... Anaconda Co. Smelter. Anaconda ........
MT............... East Helena Site..... East Helena ........
MT............... Idaho Pole Co........ Bozeman ........
MT............... Libby Ground Water Libby............... C
Contamination.
MT............... Milltown Reservoir Milltown ........
Sediments.
MT............... Montana Pole and Butte ........
Treating.
MT............... Mouat Industries..... Columbus ........
MT............... Silver Bow Creek/ Sil Bow/Deer Lodge ........
Butte Area.
NC............... ABC One Hour Cleaners Jacksonville ........
NC............... Aberdeen Pesticide Aberdeen ........
Dumps.
NC............... Benfield Industries, Hazelwood ........
Inc.
NC............... Bypass 601 Ground Concord ........
Water Contamination.
NC............... Cape Fear Wood Fayetteville ........
Preserving.
NC............... Carolina Transformer Fayetteville ........
Co.
NC............... Celanese Corp. Shelby.............. C
(Shelby Fiber
Operations).
NC............... Charles Macon Lagoon Cordova ........
& Drum Storage.
NC............... Chemtronics, Inc..... Swannanoa........... C
NC............... FCX, Inc. Statesville ........
(Statesville Plant).
NC............... FCX, Inc. (Washington Washington ........
Plant).
NC............... Geigy Chemical Corp. Aberdeen ........
(Aberdeen Plant).
NC............... General Electric Co/ East Flat Rock ........
Shepherd Farm.
NC............... JFD Electronics/ Oxford ........
Channel Master.
NC............... Jadco-Hughes Facility Belmont ........
NC............... Koppers Co. Inc. Morrisville ........
(Morrisville Plant).
NC............... Martin-Marietta, Charlotte ........
Sodyeco, Inc.
NC............... NC State University Raleigh ........
(Lot 86, Farm Unit
#1).
NC............... National Starch & Salisbury ........
Chemical Corp.
NC............... New Hanover Cnty Wilmington ........
Airport Burn Pit.
NC............... Potter's Septic Tank Maco ........
Service Pits.
ND............... Arsenic Trioxide Site Southeastern ND..... C,S
ND............... Minot Landfill....... Minot ........
NE............... 10th Street Site..... Columbus ........
NE............... Bruno Co-op Bruno ........
Association/
Associated Prop.
NE............... Cleburn Street Well.. Grand Island ........
NE............... Hastings Ground Water Hastings ........
Contamination.
NE............... Lindsay Manufacturing Lindsay............. C
Co.
NE............... Nebraska Ordnance Mead ........
Plant (Former).
NE............... Ogallala Ground Water Ogallala ........
Contamination.
NE............... Sherwood Medical Co.. Norfolk ........
NE............... Waverly Ground Water Waverly............. C
Contamination.
NH............... Auburn Road Landfill. Londonderry ........
NH............... Coakley Landfill..... North Hampton ........
NH............... Dover Municipal Dover ........
Landfill.
NH............... Fletcher's Paint Milford ........
Works & Storage.
NH............... Kearsarge Conway.............. C
Metallurgical Corp.
NH............... Keefe Environmental Epping.............. C
Services.
NH............... Mottolo Pig Farm..... Raymond............. C
NH............... New Hampshire Plating Merrimack ........
Co.
NH............... Ottati & Goss/ Kingston ........
Kingston Steel Drum.
NH............... Savage Municipal Milford ........
Water Supply.
NH............... Somersworth Sanitary Somersworth ........
Landfill.
NH............... South Municipal Water Peterborough........ C
Supply Well.
NH............... Sylvester............ Nashua.............. C,S
NH............... Tibbetts Road........ Barrington ........
NH............... Tinkham Garage....... Londonderry......... C
NH............... Town Garage/Radio Londonderry......... C
Beacon.
NJ............... A. O. Polymer........ Sparta Township ........
NJ............... American Cyanamid Co. Bound Brook ........
NJ............... Asbestos Dump........ Millington ........
NJ............... Bog Creek Farm....... Howell Township..... C
NJ............... Brick Township Brick Township ........
Landfill.
NJ............... Bridgeport Rental & Bridgeport ........
Oil Services.
NJ............... Brook Industrial Park Bound Brook ........
NJ............... Burnt Fly Bog........ Marlboro Township ........
NJ............... CPS/Madison Old Bridge Township ........
Industries.
NJ............... Caldwell Trucking Co. Fairfield ........
NJ............... Chemical Control..... Elizabeth........... C
NJ............... Chemical Insecticide Edison Township ........
Corp.
NJ............... Chemical Leaman Tank Bridgeport ........
Lines, Inc.
[[Page 30522]]
NJ............... Chemsol, Inc......... Piscataway ........
NJ............... Ciba-Geigy Corp...... Toms River ........
NJ............... Cinnaminson Ground Cinnaminson Township ........
Water Contamination.
NJ............... Combe Fill North Mount Olive Township C
Landfill.
NJ............... Combe Fill South Chester Township ........
Landfill.
NJ............... Cosden Chemical Beverly ........
Coatings Corp.
NJ............... Curcio Scrap Metal, Saddle Brook ........
Inc. Township
NJ............... D'Imperio Property... Hamilton Township ........
NJ............... Dayco Corp./L.E Wharton Borough ........
Carpenter Co.
NJ............... De Rewal Chemical Co. Kingwood Township ........
NJ............... Delilah Road......... Egg Harbor Township ........
NJ............... Denzer & Schafer X- Bayville............ C
Ray Co.
NJ............... Diamond Alkali Co.... Newark ........
NJ............... Dover Municipal Well Dover Township ........
4.
NJ............... Ellis Property....... Evesham Township ........
NJ............... Evor Phillips Leasing Old Bridge Township ........
NJ............... Ewan Property........ Shamong Township ........
NJ............... Fair Lawn Well Field. Fair Lawn ........
NJ............... Florence Land Florence Township ........
Recontouring
Landfill.
NJ............... Franklin Burn........ Franklin Township ........
NJ............... Fried Industries..... East Brunswick ........
Township
NJ............... GEMS Landfill........ Gloucester Township ........
NJ............... Garden State Cleaners Minotola
Co.
NJ............... Glen Ridge Radium Glen Ridge
Site.
NJ............... Global Sanitary Old Bridge Township
Landfill.
NJ............... Goose Farm........... Plumstead Township.. C
NJ............... Helen Kramer Landfill Mantua Township..... C
NJ............... Hercules, Inc. Gibbstown
(Gibbstown Plant).
NJ............... Higgins Disposal..... Kingston
NJ............... Higgins Farm......... Franklin Township
NJ............... Hopkins Farm......... Plumstead Township
NJ............... Horseshoe Road....... Sayreville
NJ............... Imperial Oil Co., Morganville
Inc./Champion
Chemicals.
NJ............... Industrial Latex Corp Wallington Borough
NJ............... JIS Landfill......... Jamesburg/S. Brnswck
NJ............... Kauffman & Minteer, Jobstown
Inc.
NJ............... Kin-Buc Landfill..... Edison Township
NJ............... King of Prussia...... Winslow Township.... C
NJ............... Landfill & Mount Holly
Development Co.
NJ............... Lang Property........ Pemberton Township.. C
NJ............... Lipari Landfill...... Pitman
NJ............... Lodi Municipal Well.. Lodi................ C
NJ............... Lone Pine Landfill... Freehold Township... C
NJ............... Mannheim Avenue Dump. Galloway Township... C
NJ............... Maywood Chemical Co.. Maywood/Rochelle
Park
NJ............... Metaltec/Aerosystems. Franklin Borough
NJ............... Monitor Devices/ Wall Township
Intercircuits Inc.
NJ............... Montclair/West Orange Montclair/W Orange
Radium Site.
NJ............... Montgomery Township Montgomery Township
Housing Development.
NJ............... Myers Property....... Franklin Township
NJ............... NL Industries........ Pedricktown
NJ............... Nascolite Corp....... Millville
NJ............... PJP Landfill......... Jersey City
NJ............... Pepe Field........... Boonton
NJ............... Pijak Farm........... Plumstead Township
NJ............... Pohatcong Valley Warren County
Ground Water
Contaminat.
NJ............... Pomona Oaks Galloway Township... C
Residential Wells.
NJ............... Price Landfill....... Pleasantville....... S
NJ............... Radiation Technology, Rockaway Township
Inc.
NJ............... Reich Farms.......... Pleasant Plains
NJ............... Renora, Inc.......... Edison Township
NJ............... Rockaway Borough Well Rockaway Township
Field.
NJ............... Rockaway Township Rockaway
Wells.
NJ............... Rocky Hill Municipal Rocky Hill Borough
Well.
NJ............... Roebling Steel Co.... Florence
NJ............... Sayreville Landfill.. Sayreville
NJ............... Scientific Chemical Carlstadt
Processing.
NJ............... Sharkey Landfill..... Parsippany/Troy Hls
NJ............... Shieldalloy Corp..... Newfield Borough
NJ............... South Brunswick South Brunswick..... C
Landfill.
NJ............... South Jersey Clothing Minotola
Co.
NJ............... Spence Farm.......... Plumstead Township
[[Page 30523]]
NJ............... Swope Oil & Chemical Pennsauken
Co.
NJ............... Syncon Resins........ South Kearny
NJ............... Tabernacle Drum Dump. Tabernacle Township. C
NJ............... U.S. Radium Corp..... Orange
NJ............... Universal Oil East Rutherford
Products (Chemical
Division).
NJ............... Upper Deerfield Upper Deerfield C
Township Sanit. Township.
Landfill.
NJ............... Ventron/Velsicol..... Wood Ridge Borough
NJ............... Vineland Chemical Vineland
Co., Inc.
NJ............... Vineland State School Vineland............ C
NJ............... Waldick Aerospace Wall Township
Devices, Inc.
NJ............... Welsbach & General Camden and
Gas Mantle (Camden). Gloucester City
NJ............... White Chemical Corp.. Newark.............. A
NJ............... Williams Property.... Swainton............ C
NJ............... Wilson Farm.......... Plumstead Township.. C
NJ............... Woodland Route 532 Woodland Township
Dump.
NJ............... Woodland Route 72 Woodland Township
Dump.
NM............... AT & SF (Clovis)..... Clovis
NM............... AT&SF (Albuquerque).. Albuquerque
NM............... Cimarron Mining Corp. Carrizozo........... C
NM............... Cleveland Mill....... Silver City
NM............... Homestake Mining Co.. Milan
NM............... Prewitt Abandoned Prewitt
Refinery.
NM............... South Valley......... Albuquerque......... S
NM............... United Nuclear Corp.. Church Rock
NV............... Carson River Mercury Lyon/Churchill Cnty
Site.
NY............... American Thermostat South Cairo
Co.
NY............... Anchor Chemicals..... Hicksville
NY............... Applied Environmental Glenwood Landing
Services.
NY............... Batavia Landfill..... Batavia
NY............... Brewster Well Field.. Putnam County
NY............... Byron Barrel & Drum.. Byron
NY............... Carroll & Dubies Port Jervis
Sewage Disposal.
NY............... Circuitron Corp...... East Farmingdale
NY............... Claremont Old Bethpage
Polychemical.
NY............... Colesville Municipal Town of Colesville
Landfill.
NY............... Conklin Dumps........ Conklin
NY............... Cortese Landfill..... Village of
Narrowsburg
NY............... Endicott Village Well Village of Endicott
Field.
NY............... FMC Corp. (Dublin Town of Shelby
Road Landfill).
NY............... Facet Enterprises, Elmira
Inc.
NY............... Forest Glen Mobile Niagara Falls....... A
Home Subdivision.
NY............... Fulton Terminals..... Fulton
NY............... GCL Tie & Treating Village of Sidney
Inc.
NY............... GE Moreau............ South Glen Falls
NY............... General Motors Massena s
(Central Foundry
Division).
NY............... Genzale Plating Co... Franklin Square
NY............... Goldisc Recordings, Holbrook
Inc.
NY............... Haviland Complex..... Town of Hyde Park
NY............... Hertel Landfill...... Plattekill
NY............... Hooker (102nd Street) Niagara Falls
NY............... Hooker (Hyde Park)... Niagara Falls
NY............... Hooker (S Area)...... Niagara Falls
NY............... Hooker Chemical/Ruco Hicksville
Polymer Corp.
NY............... Hudson River PCBs.... Hudson River
NY............... Islip Municipal Islip
Sanitary Landfill.
NY............... Johnstown City Town of Johnstown
Landfill.
NY............... Jones Chemicals, Inc. Caledonia
NY............... Jones Sanitation..... Hyde Park
NY............... Katonah Municipal Town of Bedford..... C
Well.
NY............... Kentucky Avenue Well Horseheads
Field.
NY............... Li Tungsten Corp..... Glen Cove
NY............... Liberty Industrial Farmingdale
Finishing.
NY............... Little Valley........ Little Valley....... A
NY............... Love Canal........... Niagara Falls
NY............... Ludlow Sand & Gravel. Clayville
NY............... Malta Rocket Fuel Malta
Area.
NY............... Marathon Battery Corp Cold Springs........ C
NY............... Mattiace Glen Cove
Petrochemical Co.,
Inc.
NY............... Mercury Refining, Inc Colonie
NY............... Nepera Chemical Co., Maybrook
Inc.
NY............... Niagara County Refuse Wheatfield
NY............... Niagara Mohawk Power Saratoga Springs
Co. (Saratoga
Springs).
[[Page 30524]]
NY............... North Sea Municipal North Sea........... C
Landfill.
NY............... Old Bethpage Landfill Oyster Bay.......... C
NY............... Olean Well Field..... Olean
NY............... Onondaga Lake........ Syracuse
NY............... Pasley Solvents & Hempstead
Chemicals, Inc.
NY............... Pfohl Brothers Cheektowaga
Landfill.
NY............... Pollution Abatement Oswego.............. S
Services.
NY............... Port Washington Port Washington
Landfill.
NY............... Preferred Plating Farmingdale
Corp.
NY............... Ramapo Landfill...... Ramapo
NY............... Richardson Hill Road Sidney Center
Landfill/Pond.
NY............... Robintech, Inc./ Town of Vestal
National Pipe Co.
NY............... Rosen Brothers Scrap Cortland
Yard/Dump.
NY............... Rowe Industries Gnd Noyack/Sag Harbor ........
Water Contamination.
NY............... SMS Instruments, Inc. Deer Park........... C
NY............... Sarney Farm.......... Amenia ........
NY............... Sealand Restoration, Lisbon ........
Inc.
NY............... Sidney Landfill...... Sidney ........
NY............... Sinclair Refinery.... Wellsville ........
NY............... Solvent Savers....... Lincklaen ........
NY............... Syosset Landfill..... Oyster Bay ........
NY............... Tri-Cities Barrel Port Crane ........
Co., Inc.
NY............... Tronic Plating Co., Farmingdale......... C
Inc.
NY............... Vestal Water Supply Vestal ........
Well 1-1.
NY............... Vestal Water Supply Vestal ........
Well 4-2.
NY............... Volney Municipal Town of Volney ........
Landfill.
NY............... Warwick Landfill..... Warwick ........
NY............... York Oil Co.......... Moira ........
OH............... Allied Chemical & Ironton ........
Ironton Coke.
OH............... Alsco Anaconda....... Gnadenhutten ........
OH............... Arcanum Iron & Metal. Darke County ........
OH............... Big D Campground..... Kingsville.......... C
OH............... Bowers Landfill...... Circleville......... C
OH............... Buckeye Reclamation.. St. Clairsville ........
OH............... Chem-Dyne............ Hamilton............ C,S
OH............... Coshocton Landfill... Franklin Township ........
OH............... E.H. Schilling Hamilton Township... C
Landfill.
OH............... Fields Brook......... Ashtabula ........
OH............... Fultz Landfill....... Jackson Township ........
OH............... Industrial Excess Uniontown ........
Landfill.
OH............... Laskin/Poplar Oil Co. Jefferson Township.. C
OH............... Miami County Troy ........
Incinerator.
OH............... Nease Chemical....... Salem ........
OH............... New Lyme Landfill.... New Lyme............ C
OH............... North Sanitary Dayton ........
Landfill.
OH............... Old Mill............. Rock Creek.......... C
OH............... Ormet Corp........... Hannibal ........
OH............... Powell Road Landfill. Dayton ........
OH............... Pristine, Inc........ Reading ........
OH............... Reilly Tar & Chemical Dover ........
(Dover Plant).
OH............... Republic Steel Corp. Elyria.............. C
Quarry.
OH............... Sanitary Landfill Co. Dayton ........
(Industrial Waste).
OH............... Skinner Landfill..... West Chester ........
OH............... South Point Plant.... South Point ........
OH............... Summit National...... Deerfield Township.. C
OH............... TRW, Inc. (Minerva Minerva............. C
Plant).
OH............... United Scrap Lead Troy ........
Co., Inc.
OH............... Van Dale Junkyard.... Marietta ........
OH............... Zanesville Well Field Zanesville ........
OK............... Compass Industries Tulsa............... C
(Avery Drive).
OK............... Double Eagle Refinery Oklahoma City ........
Co.
OK............... Fourth Street Oklahoma City ........
Abandoned Refinery.
OK............... Hardage/Criner....... Criner ........
OK............... Mosley Road Sanitary Oklahoma City ........
Landfill.
OK............... Oklahoma Refining Co. Cyril ........
OK............... Sand Springs Sand Springs ........
Petrochemical
Complex.
OK............... Tar Creek (Ottawa Ottawa County ........
County).
OK............... Tenth Street Dump/ Oklahoma City ........
Junkyard.
OR............... Gould, Inc........... Portland ........
OR............... Joseph Forest Joseph.............. C
Products.
OR............... Martin-Marietta The Dalles.......... C
Aluminum Co.
OR............... McCormick & Baxter Portland ........
Creos. Co.
(Portland).
[[Page 30525]]
OR............... Northwest Pipe & Clackamas ........
Casing Co.
OR............... Reynolds Metals Troutdale ........
Company.
OR............... Teledyne Wah Chang... Albany ........
OR............... Union Pacific The Dalles ........
Railroad Tie
Treatment.
OR............... United Chrome Corvallis........... C
Products, Inc.
PA............... A.I.W. Frank/Mid- Exton ........
County Mustang.
PA............... AMP, Inc. (Glen Rock Glen Rock
Facility).
PA............... Aladdin Plating...... Scott Township
PA............... Ambler Asbestos Piles Ambler.............. C
PA............... Austin Avenue Delaware County..... A
Radiation Site.
PA............... Avco Lycoming Williamsport
(Williamsport
Division).
PA............... Bally Ground Water Bally Borough
Contamination.
PA............... Bell Landfill........ Terry Township
PA............... Bendix Flight Systems Bridgewater Township
Division.
PA............... Berkley Products Co. Denver
Dump.
PA............... Berks Landfill....... Spring Township
PA............... Berks Sand Pit....... Longswamp Township.. C
PA............... Blosenski Landfill... West Caln Township
PA............... Boarhead Farms....... Bridgeton Township
PA............... Breslube-Penn, Inc... Coraopolis
PA............... Brodhead Creek....... Stroudsburg
PA............... Brown's Battery Shoemakersville
Breaking.
PA............... Bruin Lagoon......... Bruin Borough....... C
PA............... Butler Mine Tunnel... Pittston
PA............... Butz Landfill........ Stroudsburg
PA............... C & D Recycling...... Foster Township
PA............... Centre County Kepone. State College
Borough
PA............... Commodore Lower Providence
Semiconductor Group. Township
PA............... Craig Farm Drum...... Parker.............. C
PA............... Crater Resources/ Upper Merion
Keystone Coke/Alan Township
Wood.
PA............... Crossley Farm........ Hereford Township
PA............... Croydon TCE.......... Croydon
PA............... CryoChem, Inc........ Worman
PA............... Delta Quarries & Antis/Logan Twps
Disp./Stotler
Landfill.
PA............... Dorney Road Landfill. Upper Macungie
Township
PA............... Douglassville Douglassville
Disposal.
PA............... Drake Chemical....... Lock Haven
PA............... Dublin TCE Site...... Dublin Borough
PA............... East Mount Zion...... Springettsbury
Township
PA............... Eastern Diversified Hometown
Metals.
PA............... Elizabethtown Elizabethtown
Landfill.
PA............... Fischer & Porter Co.. Warminster
PA............... Foote Mineral Co..... East Whiteland
Township
PA............... Havertown PCP........ Haverford
PA............... Hebelka Auto Salvage Weisenberg Township. C
Yard.
PA............... Heleva Landfill...... North Whitehall
Township
PA............... Hellertown Hellertown
Manufacturing Co.
PA............... Henderson Road....... Upper Merion C
Township.
PA............... Hranica Landfill..... Buffalo Township.... C
PA............... Hunterstown Road..... Straban Township
PA............... Industrial Lane...... Williams Township
PA............... Jacks Creek/Sitkin Maitland
Smelting and
Refinery.
PA............... Keystone Sanitation Union Township
Landfill.
PA............... Kimberton Site....... Kimberton Borough... C
PA............... Lackawanna Refuse.... Old Forge Borough... C
PA............... Lindane Dump......... Harrison Township
PA............... Lord-Shope Landfill.. Girard Township
PA............... MW Manufacturing..... Valley Township
PA............... Malvern TCE.......... Malvern
PA............... McAdoo Associates.... McAdoo Borough...... C,S
PA............... Metal Banks.......... Philadelphia
PA............... Metropolitan Mirror Frackville
and Glass.
PA............... Middletown Air Field. Middletown
PA............... Mill Creek Dump...... Erie
PA............... Modern Sanitation Lower Windsor
Landfill. Township
PA............... Moyers Landfill...... Eagleville
PA............... North Penn--Area 1... Souderton
PA............... North Penn--Area 12.. Worcester
PA............... North Penn--Area 2... Hatfield
PA............... North Penn--Area 5... Montgomery Township
PA............... North Penn--Area 6... Lansdale
PA............... North Penn--Area 7... North Wales
[[Page 30526]]
PA............... Novak Sanitary South Whitehall
Landfill. Township
PA............... Occidental Chemical Lower Pottsgrove
Corp./Firestone Tire. Township
PA............... Ohio River Park...... Neville Island
PA............... Old City of York Seven Valleys ........
Landfill.
PA............... Osborne Landfill..... Grove City ........
PA............... Palmerton Zinc Pile.. Palmerton ........
PA............... Paoli Rail Yard...... Paoli ........
PA............... Publicker Industries Philadephia ........
Inc.
PA............... Raymark.............. Hatboro............. C
PA............... Recticon/Allied Steel East Coventry Twp ........
Corp.
PA............... Resin Disposal....... Jefferson Borough ........
PA............... Revere Chemical Co... Nockamixon Township ........
PA............... River Road Landfill/ Hermitage ........
Waste Mngmnt, Inc.
PA............... Rodale Manufacturing Emmaus Borough ........
Co., Inc.
PA............... Route 940 Drum Dump.. Pocono Summit....... C
PA............... Saegertown Industrial Saegertown ........
Area.
PA............... Shriver's Corner..... Straban Township ........
PA............... Stanley Kessler...... King of Prussia ........
PA............... Strasburg Landfill... Newlin Township ........
PA............... Taylor Borough Dump.. Taylor Borough...... C
PA............... Tonolli Corp......... Nesquehoning ........
PA............... Tysons Dump.......... Upper Merion Twp ........
PA............... UGI Columbia Gas Columbia ........
Plant.
PA............... Walsh Landfill....... Honeybrook Township ........
PA............... Westinghouse Sharon ........
Electronic (Sharon
Plant).
PA............... Westinghouse Elevator Gettysburg ........
Co. Plant.
PA............... Whitmoyer Jackson Township ........
Laboratories.
PA............... William Dick Lagoons. West Caln Township ........
PA............... York County Solid Hopewell Township... C
Waste/Refuse
Landfill.
PR............... Barceloneta Landfill. Florida Afuera ........
PR............... Fibers Public Supply Jobos ........
Wells.
PR............... Frontera Creek....... Rio Abajo ........
PR............... GE Wiring Devices.... Juana Diaz ........
PR............... Juncos Landfill...... Juncos ........
PR............... RCA Del Caribe....... Barceloneta ........
PR............... Upjohn Facility...... Barceloneta ........
PR............... Vega Alta Public Vega Alta ........
Supply Wells.
RI............... Central Landfill..... Johnston ........
RI............... Davis (GSR) Landfill. Glocester ........
RI............... Davis Liquid Waste... Smithfield ........
RI............... Landfill & Resource North Smithfield ........
Recovery, Inc.
(L&RR).
RI............... Peterson/Puritan, Inc Lincoln/Cumberland ........
RI............... Picillo Farm......... Coventry............ S
RI............... Rose Hill Regional South Kingston ........
Landfill.
RI............... Stamina Mills, Inc... North Smithfield ........
RI............... West Kingston Town South Kingston ........
Dump/URI Disposal.
RI............... Western Sand & Gravel Burrillville........ C
SC............... Aqua-Tech Greer ........
Environmental Inc
(Groce Labs).
SC............... Beaunit Corp. Fountain Inn ........
(Circular Knit &
Dye).
SC............... Carolawn, Inc........ Fort Lawn ........
SC............... Elmore Waste Disposal Greer ........
SC............... Geiger (C & M Oil)... Rantoules ........
SC............... Golden Strip Septic Simpsonville ........
Tank Service.
SC............... Helena Chemical Co. Fairfax ........
Landfill.
SC............... Kalama Specialty Beaufort ........
Chemicals.
SC............... Koppers Co., Inc. Charleston ........
(Charleston Plant).
SC............... Koppers Co., Inc. Florence ........
(Florence Plant).
SC............... Leonard Chemical Co., Rock Hill ........
Inc.
SC............... Lexington County Cayce ........
Landfill Area.
SC............... Medley Farm Drum Dump Gaffney............. C
SC............... Palmetto Recycling, Columbia ........
Inc.
SC............... Palmetto Wood Dixiana ........
Preserving.
SC............... Para-Chem Southern, Simpsonville ........
Inc.
SC............... Rochester Property... Travelers Rest...... C
SC............... Rock Hill Chemical Co Rock Hill ........
SC............... SCRDI Bluff Road..... Columbia............ S
SC............... SCRDI Dixiana........ Cayce............... C
SC............... Sangamo Weston/Twelve- Pickens ........
Mile/Hartwell PCB.
SC............... Townsend Saw Chain Co Pontiac ........
SC............... Wamchem, Inc......... Burton ........
SD............... Whitewood Creek...... Whitewood........... C,S
SD............... Williams Pipe Line Sioux Falls......... C
Co. Disposal Pit.
[[Page 30527]]
TN............... American Creosote Jackson ........
Works, (Jackson
Plant).
TN............... Arlington Blending & Arlington ........
Packaging.
TN............... Carrier Air Collierville........ C
Conditioning Co.
TN............... Chemet Co........... Moscow ........
TN............... ICG Iselin Railroad Jackson ........
Yard.
TN............... Mallory Capacitor Co Waynesboro ........
TN............... Murray-Ohio Dump.... Lawrenceburg ........
TN............... North Hollywood Dump Memphis............. S
TN............... Tennessee Products.. Chattanooga......... A
TN............... Velsicol Chemical Toone ........
Corp (Hardeman
County).
TN............... Wrigley Charcoal Wrigley ........
Plant.
TX............... ALCOA (Point Point Comfort ........
Comfort)/Lavaca Bay.
TX............... Bailey Waste Bridge City ........
Disposal.
TX............... Bio-Ecology Systems, Grand Prairie....... C
Inc.
TX............... Brio Refining, Inc.. Friendswood ........
TX............... Crystal Chemical Co. Houston ........
TX............... Dixie Oil Friendswood......... C
Processors, Inc.
TX............... French, Ltd......... Crosby.............. C
TX............... Geneva Industries/ Houston............. C
Fuhrmann Energy.
TX............... Highlands Acid Pit.. Highlands........... C
TX............... Koppers Co Inc Texarkana ........
(Texarkana Plant).
TX............... Motco, Inc.......... La Marque........... S
TX............... North Cavalcade Houston ........
Street.
TX............... Odessa Chromium #1.. Odessa.............. C
TX............... Odessa Chromium #2 Odessa.............. C
(Andrews Highway).
TX............... Petro-Chemical Liberty County ........
Systems, (Turtle
Bayou).
TX............... RSR Corp............ Dallas ........
TX............... Sheridan Disposal Hempstead ........
Services.
TX............... Sikes Disposal Pits. Crosby.............. C
TX............... Sol Lynn/Industrial Houston............. C
Transformers.
TX............... South Cavalcade Houston ........
Street.
TX............... Texarkana Wood Texarkana ........
Preserving Co.
TX............... Triangle Chemical Co Bridge City......... C
TX............... United Creosoting Co Conroe ........
UT............... Midvale Slag........ Midvale ........
UT............... Monticello Monticello ........
Radioactive
Contaminated Prop.
UT............... Petrochem Recycling Salt Lake City ........
Corp./Ekotek Plant.
UT............... Portland Cement Salt Lake City ........
(Kiln Dust 2 & 3).
UT............... Rose Park Sludge Pit Salt Lake City...... C,S
UT............... Sharon Steel Corp. Midvale ........
(Midvale Tailings).
UT............... Utah Power & Light/ Salt Lake City ........
American Barrel Co.
UT............... Wasatch Chemical Co Salt Lake City ........
(Lot 6).
VA............... Abex Corp........... Portsmouth ........
VA............... Arrowhead Associates/ Montross ........
Scovill Corp.
VA............... Atlantic Wood Portsmouth ........
Industries, Inc.
VA............... Avtex Fibers, Inc... Front Royal ........
VA............... Buckingham County Buckingham ........
Landfill.
VA............... C & R Battery Co., Chesterfield County. C
Inc.
VA............... Chisman Creek....... York County......... C
VA............... Culpeper Wood Culpeper ........
Preservers, Inc.
VA............... Dixie Caverns County Salem ........
Landfill.
VA............... First Piedmont Rock Pittsylvania County. C
Quarry (Route 719).
VA............... Greenwood Chemical Newtown ........
Co.
VA............... H & H Inc., Burn Pit Farrington ........
VA............... L.A. Clarke & Son... Spotsylvania County ........
VA............... Rentokil, Inc. (VA Richmond ........
Wood Preserving Div).
VA............... Rhinehart Tire Fire Frederick County ........
Dump.
VA............... Saltville Waste Saltville ........
Disposal Ponds.
VA............... Saunders Supply Co.. Chuckatuck ........
VA............... U.S. Titanium....... Piney River ........
VI............... Island Chemical Corp/ Christiansted ........
V.I. Chemical Corp.
VI............... Tutu Wellfield....... Tutu ........
VT............... BFI Sanitary Landfill Rockingham ........
(Rockingham).
VT............... Bennington Municipal Bennington ........
Sanitary Landfill.
VT............... Burgess Brothers Woodford ........
Landfill.
VT............... Darling Hill Dump.... Lyndon.............. C
VT............... Old Springfield Springfield......... C
Landfill.
VT............... Parker Sanitary Lyndon ........
Landfill.
VT............... Pine Street Canal.... Burlington.......... S
VT............... Tansitor Electronics, Bennington ........
Inc.
WA............... ALCOA (Vancouver Vancouver ........
Smelter).
WA............... American Crossarm & Chehalis ........
Conduit Co.
[[Page 30528]]
WA............... Boomsnub/Airco....... Vancouver S
WA............... Centralia Municipal Centralia ........
Landfill.
WA............... Colbert Landfill..... Colbert ........
WA............... Commencement Bay, Pierce County ........
Near Shore/Tide
Flats.
WA............... Commencement Bay, Tacoma ........
South Tacoma Channel.
WA............... FMC Corp. (Yakima Yakima.............. C
Pit).
WA............... Frontier Hard Chrome, Vancouver ........
Inc.
WA............... General Electric Co. Spokane ........
(Spokane Shop).
WA............... Greenacres Landfill.. Spokane County ........
WA............... Harbor Island (Lead). Seattle ........
WA............... Hidden Valley Pierce County ........
Landfill (Thun
Field).
WA............... Kaiser Aluminum Mead Mead ........
Works.
WA............... Lakewood Site........ Lakewood............ C
WA............... Mica Landfill........ Mica ........
WA............... Midway Landfill...... Kent ........
WA............... Moses Lake Wellfield Moses Lake ........
Contamination.
WA............... North Market Street.. Spokane ........
WA............... Northside Landfill... Spokane............. C
WA............... Northwest Transformer Everson............. C
WA............... Northwest Transformer Everson............. C
(South Harkness St).
WA............... Old Inland Pit....... Spokane ........
WA............... Pacific Car & Foundry Renton ........
Co.
WA............... Pacific Sound Seattle ........
Resources.
FR Doc. 96-15032 National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites
WA............... Pasco Sanitary Pasco ........
Landfill.
WA............... Queen City Farms..... Maple Valley ........
WA............... Seattle Municipal Kent................ C
Landfill (Kent
Hghlnds).
WA............... Silver Mountain Mine. Loomis.............. C
WA............... Spokane Junkyard/ Spokane ........
Associated
Properties.
WA............... Tulalip Landfill..... Marysville ........
WA............... Vancouver Water Vancouver ........
Station #1
Contamination.
WA............... Vancouver Water Vancouver ........
Station #4
Contamination.
WA............... Western Processing Kent................ C
Co., Inc.
WA............... Wyckoff Co./Eagle Bainbridge Island ........
Harbor.
WI............... Algoma Municipal Algoma.............. C
Landfill.
WI............... Better Brite Plating DePere ........
Chrome & Zinc Shops.
WI............... City Disposal Corp. Dunn ........
Landfill.
WI............... Delavan Municipal Delavan ........
Well #4.
WI............... Eau Claire Municipal Eau Claire.......... C
Well Field.
WI............... Fadrowski Drum Franklin............ C
Disposal.
WI............... Hagen Farm........... Stoughton ........
WI............... Hechimovich Sanitary Williamstown ........
Landfill.
WI............... Hunts Disposal Caledonia ........
Landfill.
WI............... Janesville Ash Beds.. Janesville ........
WI............... Janesville Old Janesville ........
Landfill.
WI............... Kohler Co. Landfill.. Kohler ........
WI............... Lauer I Sanitary Menomonee Falls ........
Landfill.
WI............... Lemberger Landfill, Whitelaw ........
Inc.
WI............... Lemberger Transport & Franklin Township ........
Recycling.
WI............... Madison Metropolitan Blooming Grove ........
Sewerage District.
WI............... Master Disposal Brookfield ........
Service Landfill.
WI............... Mid-State Disposal, Cleveland Township.. C
Inc. Landfill.
WI............... Moss-American (Kerr- Milwaukee ........
McGee Oil Co.).
WI............... Muskego Sanitary Muskego ........
Landfill.
WI............... N.W. Mauthe Co., Inc. Appleton............ S
WI............... National Presto Eau Claire
Industries, Inc.
WI............... Northern Engraving Co Sparta.............. C
WOconomowoc...... Ashippin
Electroplating Co.
Inc.
WOmega Hills North Germantown
Landfill.
WI............... Onalaska Municipal Onalaska............ C
Landfill.
WPenta Wood Products.. Daniels
WRefuse Hideaway. Middleton
Landfill.
WRipon City Landfill.. Ripon
WSauk County Landfill. Excelsior........... C
WSchmalz Dump......... Harrison............ C
WScrap Processing Co., Medford
Inc.
WSheboygan Harbor & Sheboygan
River.
WSpickler Landfill.... Spencer
WStoughton City.. Stoughton
Landfill.
WTomah Armory......... Tomah
WI............... Tomah Fairgrounds.... Tomah
WI............... Tomah Municipal Tomah
Sanitary Landfill.
WI............... Waste Mgmt of WI Brookfield
(Brookfield Sanit
LF).
[[Page 30529]]
WI............... Wausau Ground Water Wausau.............. C
Contamination.
WI............... Wheeler Pit.......... La Prairie Township. C
WV............... Fike Chemical, Inc... Nitro
WV............... Follansbee Site...... Follansbee
WV............... Leetown Pesticide.... Leetown............. C
WV............... Ordnance Works Morgantown
Disposal Areas.
WY............... Baxter/Union Pacific Laramie
Tie Treating.
WY............... Mystery Bridge Rd/ Evansville.......... C
U.S. Highway 20.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need not be >
28.50).
C = Sites on construction completion list.
S = State top priority (included among the 100 top priority sites
regardless of score).
Table 2.--Federal Facilities Section, June 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county Notes(a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK............... Adak Naval Air Adak
Station.
AK............... Eielson Air Force Fairbanks N Star
Base. Borough
AK............... Elmendorf Air Force Greater Anchorage
Base. Borough
AK............... Fort Richardson Anchorage
(USARMY).
AK............... Fort Wainwright...... Fairbanks N Star
Borough
AK............... Standard Steel&Metals Anchorage
Salvage Yard(USDOT.
AL............... Alabama Army Childersburg
Ammunition Plant.
AL............... Anniston Army Depot Anniston
(SE Industrial Area).
AL............... Redstone Arsenal Huntsville
(USARMY/NASA).
AZ............... Luke Air Force Base.. Glendale
AZ............... Williams Air Force Chandler
Base.
AZ............... Yuma Marine Corps Air Yuma
Station.
CA............... Barstow Marine Corps Barstow
Logistics Base.
CA............... Camp Pendleton Marine San Diego County
Corps Base.
CA............... Castle Air Force Base Merced
CA............... Concord Naval Weapons Concord
Station.
CA............... Edwards Air Force Kern County
Base.
CA............... El Toro Marine Corps El Toro
Air Station.
CA............... Fort Ord............. Marina
CA............... George Air Force Base Victorville
CA............... Jet Propulsion Pasadena
Laboratory (NASA).
CA............... LEHR/Old Campus Davis
Landfill (USDOE).
CA............... Lawrence Livermore Livermore
Lab Site 300 (USDOE).
CA............... Lawrence Livermore Livermore
Laboratory (USDOE).
CA............... March Air Force Base. Riverside
CA............... Mather Air Force Base Sacramento
CA............... McClellan Air Force Sacramento
Base (GW Contam).
CA............... Moffett Naval Air Sunnyvale
Station.
CA............... Norton Air Force Base San Bernardino
CA............... Riverbank Army Riverbank
Ammunition Plant.
CA............... Sacramento Army Depot Sacramento
CA............... Sharpe Army Depot.... Lathrop
CA............... Tracy Defense Depot Tracy
(USARMY).
CA............... Travis Air Force Base Solano County
CA............... Treasure Island Naval San Francisco
Station-Hun Pt An.
CO............... Air Force Plant PJKS. Waterton
CO............... Rocky Flats Plant Golden
(USDOE).
CO............... Rocky Mountain Adams County
Arsenal (USARMY).
CT............... New London Submarine New London
Base.
DE............... Dover Air Force Base. Dover
FL............... Cecil Field Naval Air Jacksonville
Station.
FL............... Homestead Air Force Homestead
Base.
FL............... Jacksonville Naval Jacksonville
Air Station.
FL............... Pensacola Naval Air Pensacola
Station.
FL............... Whiting Field Naval Milton
Air Station.
GA............... Marine Corps Albany
Logistics Base.
GA............... Robins Air Force Base Houston County
(Lf#4/Sludge lagoon).
GU............... Andersen Air Force Yigo
Base.
HI............... Naval Computer & Oahu
Telecommunications
Area.
HI............... Pearl Harbor Naval Pearl Harbor
Complex.
HI............... Schofield Barracks Oahu
(USARMY).
IA............... Iowa Army Ammunition Middletown
Plant.
ID............... Idaho National Idaho Falls
Engineering Lab
(USDOE).
ID............... Mountain Home Air Mountain Home
Force Base.
[[Page 30530]]
IL............... Joliet Army Joliet
Ammunition Plant
(LAP Area).
IL............... Joliet Army Joliet
Ammunition Plant
(Mfg Area).
IL............... Sangamo Electric/Crab Carterville
Orchard NWR (USDOI).
IL............... Savanna Army Depot Savanna
Activity.
KS............... Fort Riley........... Junction City
KY............... Paducah Gaseous Paducah
Diffusion Plant
(USDOE).
LA............... Louisiana Army Doyline
Ammunition Plant.
MA............... Fort Devens.......... Fort Devens
MA............... Fort Devens-Sudbury Middlesex County
Training Annex.
MA............... Hanscom Field/Hanscom Bedford
Air Force Base.
MA............... Materials Technology Watertown
Laboratory (USARMY).
MA............... Natick Laboratory Natick
Army Research, D&E
Cntr.
MA............... Naval Weapons Bedford
Industrial Reserve
Plant.
MA............... Otis Air National Falmouth
Guard (USAF).
MA............... South Weymouth Naval Weymouth
Air Station.
MD............... Aberdeen Proving Edgewood
Ground (Edgewood
Area).
MD............... Aberdeen Proving Aberdeen
Ground
(Michaelsville LF).
MD............... Beltsville Beltsville
Agricultural
Research (USDA).
MD............... Indian Head Naval Indian Head
Surface Warfare
Center.
MD............... Patuxent River Naval St. Mary's County
Air Station.
ME............... Brunswick Naval Air Brunswick
Station.
ME............... Loring Air Force Base Limestone
ME............... Portsmouth Naval Kittery
Shipyard.
MN............... Naval Industrial Fridley
Reserve Ordnance
Plant.
MN............... New Brighton/Arden New Brighton
Hills/TCAAP (USARMY).
MN............... Twin Cities Air Force Minneapolis......... C
Base (SAR Landfill).
MO............... Lake City Army Ammu. Independence
Plant (NW Lagoon).
MO............... Weldon Spring Former St. Charles County
Army Ordnance Works.
MO............... Weldon Spring Quarry/ St. Charles County
Plant/Pitts (USDOE).
NC............... Camp Lejeune Military Onslow County
Res. (USNAVY).
NC............... Cherry Point Marine Havelock
Corps Air Station.
NE............... Cornhusker Army Hall County
Ammunition Plant.
NH............... Pease Air Force Base. Portsmouth/Newington
NJ............... Federal Aviation Atlantic County
Admin. Tech. Center.
NJ............... Fort Dix (Landfill Pemberton Township
Site).
NJ............... Naval Air Engineering Lakehurst
Center.
NJ............... Naval Weapons Station Colts Neck
Earle (Site A).
NJ............... Picatinny Arsenal Rockaway Township
(USARMY).
NJ............... W.R. Grace/Wayne Wayne Township
Interim Storage
(USDOE).
NM............... Cal West Metals Lemitar............. C
(USSBA).
NM............... Lee Acres Landfill Farmington
(USDOI).
NY............... Brookhaven National Upton
Laboratory (USDOE).
NY............... Griffiss Air Force Rome
Base.
NY............... Plattsburgh Air Force Plattsburgh
Base.
NY............... Seneca Army Depot.... Romulus
OH............... Feed Materials Fernald
Production Center
(USDOE).
OH............... Mound Plant (USDOE).. Miamisburg
OH............... Wright-Patterson Air Dayton
Force Base.
OK............... Tinker Air Force Oklahoma City
(Soldier Cr/Bldg
300).
OR............... Fremont Nat. Forest Lakeview
Uranium Mines (USDA).
OR............... Umatilla Army Depot Hermiston
(Lagoons).
PA............... Letterkenny Army Franklin County
Depot (PDO Area).
PA............... Letterkenny Army Chambersburg
Depot (SE Area).
PA............... Naval Air Development Warminster Township
Center (8 Areas).
PA............... Navy Ships Parts Mechanicsburg
Control Center.
PA............... Tobyhanna Army Depot. Tobyhanna
PA............... Willow Grove Naval Willow Grove
Air & Air Res. Stn.
PR............... Naval Security Group Sabana Seca
Activity.
RI............... Davisville Naval North Kingston
Construction Batt
Cent.
RI............... Newport Naval Newport
Education/Training
Center.
SC............... Parris Island Marine Parris Island
Corps Recruit Depot.
SC............... Savannah River Site Aiken
(USDOE).
SD............... Ellsworth Air Force Rapid City
Base.
TN............... Memphis Defense Depot Memphis
(DLA).
TN............... Milan Army Ammunition Milan
Plant.
TN............... Oak Ridge Reservation Oak Ridge
(USDOE).
TX............... Air Force Plant #4 Fort Worth
(General Dynamics).
TX............... Lone Star Army Texarkana
Ammunition Plant.
TX............... Longhorn Army Karnack
Ammunition Plant.
TX............... Pantex Plant (USDOE). Pantex Village
UT............... Hill Air Force Base.. Ogden
UT............... Monticello Mill Monticello
Tailings (USDOE).
[[Page 30531]]
UT............... Ogden Defense Depot Ogden............... C
(DLA).
UT............... Tooele Army Depot Tooele
(North Area).
VA............... Defense General Chesterfield County
Supply Center (DLA).
VA............... Fort Eustis (US Army) Newport News
VA............... Langley Air Force Hampton
Base/NASA Langley
Cntr.
VA............... Marine Corps Combat Quantico
Development Command.
VA............... Naval Surface Dahlgren
Warfare--Dahlgren.
VA............... Naval Weapons Yorktown
Station--Yorktown.
WA............... American Lake Gardens/ Tacoma.............. C
McChord AFB.
WA............... Bangor Naval Silverdale
Submarine Base.
WA............... Bangor Ordinance Bremerton
Disposal (US NAVY).
WA............... Bonneville Power Vancouver........... C
Admin Ross (USDOE).
WA............... Fairchild Air Force Spokane County
Base (4 Waste Areas).
WA............... Fort Lewis Logistics Tillicum
Center.
WA............... Hanford 100-Area Benton County
(USDOE).
WA............... Hanford 1100-Area Benton County
(USDOE).
WA............... Hanford 200-Area Benton County
(USDOE).
WA............... Hanford 300-Area Benton County
(USDOE).
WA............... Jackson Park Housing Kitsap County
Complex (USNAVY).
WA............... McChord Air Force Tacoma.............. C
Base (Wash Rack/
Treat).
WA............... Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island
Whidbey Island
(Ault).
WA............... Naval Undersea Keyport
Warfare Station (4
Areas).
WA............... Old Navy Dump/ Manchester
Manchester Lab
(USEPA/NOAA).
WA............... Port Hadlock Indian Island
Detachment (USNAVY).
WA............... Puget Sound Naval Bremerton
Shipyard Complex.
WV............... Allegany Ballistics Mineral
Laboratory (USNAVY).
WV............... West Virginia Point Pleasant...... S
Ordinance (USARMY).
WY............... F.E. Warren Air Force Cheyenne
Base.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need not be >
28.50).
C = Sites on construction completion list.
S = State top priority (included among the 100 top priority sites
regardless of score).
[FR Doc. 96-15032 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14631 Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company Engine Oil Filter Adapter Assemblies Installed on Aircraft
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30501-30505]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14631]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 93-CE-54-AD; Amendment 39-9665; AD 96-12- 22]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company Engine Oil
Filter Adapter Assemblies Installed on Aircraft
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that
applies to Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) engine oil filter adapter
assemblies installed on aircraft. This action requires inspecting the
oil filter and adapter assembly (or torque putty,
[[Page 30502]]
if installed) for oil leakage and proper installation of the adapter
retaining nut and fretting of associated threads (security), and
replacing any oil filter adapter assembly with security problems;
applying torque putty between the engine filter adapter assembly, nut,
and oil pump housing (unless already equipped with torque putty); and
repetitively inspecting the torque putty for misalignment, evidence of
oil leakage, or torque putty cracks, and reinspecting the oil filter
and adapter assembly threads if misalignment, evidence of oil leakage,
or torque putty cracks are found. Reports of loose or separated engine
oil filter adapters on several airplanes prompted this action. The
actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent loss of engine oil
caused by loose or separated oil filter adapters, which, if not
detected and corrected, could result in engine stoppage while in flight
and loss of control of the airplane.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 31, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Information that applies to this AD may be examined at the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the
Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket 93-CE-54-AD, Room
1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Paul O. Pendleton, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport
Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone (316) 946-4143;
facsimile (316) 946-4407.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Events Leading to the AD
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to airplanes of any type
design that utilize any Cessna engine oil filter adapter was published
in the Federal Register on January 22, 1996 (61 FR 1534). The action
proposed to require (1) inspecting the oil filter and adapter assembly
(or torque putty, if installed) for oil leakage and proper installation
of the adapter retaining nut and fretting of associated threads
(security), and replacing any oil filter adapter assembly with security
problems; (2) applying torque putty between the engine filter adapter
assembly, nut, and oil pump housing (unless already equipped with
torque putty); and (3) repetitively inspecting the torque putty for
misalignment, evidence of oil leakage, or torque putty cracks, and
reinspecting the oil filter and adapter assembly threads if
misalignment, evidence of oil leakage, or torque putty cracks are
found. This proposal revised a previous proposal that was published in
the Federal Register on September 19, 1994 (59 FR 47821).
Reports of loose or separated engine oil filter adapters on several
airplanes prompted the proposal.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the
proposed rule or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.
After careful review of all available information related to the
subject presented above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the
public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for
minor editorial corrections. The FAA has determined that these minor
corrections will not change the meaning of the AD and will not add any
additional burden upon the public than was already proposed.
Cost Impact
The FAA estimates that 70,000 airplanes in the U.S. registry
incorporate one of the affected engine oil filter adapter assemblies
and will, therefore, be affected by this AD; that it will take
approximately 1 workhour per airplane to accomplish the initial
inspection and torque putty application; and that the average labor
rate is approximately $60 an hour. Based on these figures, the total
cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $4,200,000.
This figure is based on the assumption that no operator has
accomplished the initial inspection, and does not take into account the
cost for the repetitive inspections. Since the pilot is allowed to
repetitively inspect the torque putty, the only cost of the repetitive
inspections is the time incurred by the pilot and the cost of an
inspection required if misalignment, evidence of oil leakage, or torque
putty cracks are found. The FAA has no way of determining how many
repetitive inspections each individual operator will incur over the
life of the airplane.
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 copy of the final evaluation prepared for this
action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the
caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD) to read as follows:
96-12-22 Cessna Aircraft Company: Amendment 39-9665; Docket No. 93-
CE-54-AD.
Applicability: Cessna Engine Oil Filter Adapters Assemblies,
part numbers 0450404-(all dash numbers), 0556004-(all dash numbers),
0556010-(all dash numbers), 0756023-(all dash numbers), 0756024-(all
dash numbers), 1250403-(all dash numbers), 1250417-(all dash
numbers), 1250418-(all dash numbers), 1250921-(all dash numbers),
and 1250922-(all dash numbers), installed on, but not limited to,
the following:
(1) Cessna Models 100, 200, 300, and 400 Series airplanes (all
serial numbers), certificated in any category, that are equipped
with at least one Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) engine.
(2) Airplanes that have an affected full flow engine oil adapter
installed by field approval, including, but not limited to, the
following model or series airplanes, certificated in any category:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer Series/models
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell/Aero Commander/Meyers............ 200 Series.
Twin Commander............................ Models 500A and 685.
Beech..................................... 33, 35, 36, and 55 Series.
Piper..................................... PA46 Series.
[[Page 30503]]
Navion.................................... Rangemaster 17 Series.
Wren...................................... Model 460.
Bellanca.................................. 260 and 300 Series.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Airplanes equipped with any of the following Teledyne
Continental Motors model or model series engines:
O-200
TSIO-470
TSIO-520
TSIO-550
O-470
O-520
GTSIO-520
IO-470
IO-520
IO-550
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (f) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Note 2: This AD does not apply to engine oil filter adapter
assemblies manufactured by Teledyne Continental Motors (See Figure 1
of this AD). Compliance: Required initially as specified in both of
the following, and thereafter as indicated in the body of this AD:
1. Within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the
effective date of this AD or when the engine oil filter is removed,
whichever occurs first; and
2. Every time the engine oil filter is removed.
To prevent loss of engine oil caused by loose or separated oil
filter adapters, which could result in engine stoppage while in
flight and loss of control of the airplane, accomplish the
following:
(a) For airplanes with engine oil filter adapter assemblies that
do not have torque putty between the engine filter adapter assembly,
nut, and oil pump housing, accomplish the following:
(1) Inspect the adapter locking nut installation for evidence of
oil leakage.
(2) Check the torque of the adapter nut installation and ensure
that the torque value is within the limits of 50 through 60 foot
pounds.
(3) If evidence of oil leakage is found or the torque is not
within the 50 through 60-foot pound limit, prior to further flight,
remove the adapter and filter assembly, and:
(i) Inspect the threads of the adapter assembly and engine for
signs of damaged or cracked threads; and
(ii) Replace any adapter assembly and engine oil pump housing
(if necessary) that have evidence of thread damage or cracks.
(4) Apply torque putty between the engine filter adapter
assembly, nut, and oil pump housing as specified in Figure 1 of this
AD.
(5) Reassemble the engine oil filter assembly.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-V
[[Page 30504]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17JN96.015
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
[[Page 30505]]
(b) For airplanes with torque putty between the engine filter
adapter assembly, nut, and oil pump housing, inspect the torque
putty for misalignment, evidence of oil leakage, or cracks.
(1) If any misalignment, evidence of oil leakage, or torque
putty cracks are found, prior to further flight, accomplish the
requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this AD, including all
subparagraphs.
(2) If no misalignment, evidence of oil leakage, or torque putty
cracks are found, reinspect at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS
until the engine oil filter is removed.
(c) Replacing the engine oil filter adapter assembly does not
eliminate the repetitive inspection requirement of this AD.
(d) The repetitive inspections of the torque putty as required
by this AD may be performed by the owner/operator holding at least a
private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7), and must be entered into
the aircraft records showing compliance with this AD in accordance
with section 43.11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
43.11).
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(f) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
initial or repetitive compliance time that provides an equivalent
level of safety may be approved by the Manager, Wichita Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-
Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209. The request shall be
forwarded through an appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may
add comments and then send it to the Manager, Wichita ACO.
Note 4: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Wichita ACO.
(g) Information related to this AD may be examined at the FAA,
Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Room 1558,
601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
(h) This amendment (39-9665) becomes effective on July 31, 1996.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 3, 1996.
Henry A. Armstrong,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-14631 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14611 Oil Spill Prevention and Response Plans
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30532-30543]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14611]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 30533]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Part 130
[Docket Nos. HM-214 and PC-1; Amdt. No. 130-2]
RIN 2137-AC31
Oil Spill Prevention and Response Plans
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule implements the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, and amends
requirements that RSPA issued as an interim final rule on June 16,
1993. This rule adopts requirements for packaging, communication, spill
response planning and response plan implementation intended to prevent
and contain spills of oil during transportation. It requires
comprehensive response plans for oil shipments in bulk packagings
(i.e., cargo tanks (tank trucks), railroad tank cars, and portable
tanks) in a quantity greater than 42,000 gallons and less detailed
basic response plans for petroleum oil shipments in bulk packagings of
3,500 gallons or more.
DATES: Effective: June 17, 1996.
Applicability: Incorporation by reference of the publication listed
in Sec. 130.5 was authorized by the Director of the Federal Register on
June 17, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Allan, Office of Hazardous
Materials Standards, RSPA, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh
Street SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone (202) 366-8553 or Nancy
Machado, Office of the Chief Counsel, RSPA, Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001,
Telephone (202) 366-4400.
I. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
Statutory Authority and Delegations. This final rule implements two
separate mandates under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(FWPCA). Section 311(j)(1)(C) of the FWPCA, 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(1)(C),
directs the President to issue regulations ``establishing procedures,
methods, and equipment and other requirements for equipment to prevent
discharges of oil and hazardous substances from vessels and from
onshore facilities and offshore facilities, and to contain such
discharges.'' Section 311(j)(5), 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5), added to the
FWPCA by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), Pub. L. 101-380,
Sec. 4202, directs the President to issue regulations requiring owners
and operators of certain vessels and onshore and offshore oil
facilities to develop, submit, update and in some cases obtain approval
of oil spill response plans.
On October 22, 1991, the President delegated to the Secretary of
Transportation his authority to regulate transportation-related onshore
facilities (among others) under Secs. 1321(j)(1)(C) and 1321(j)(5).
E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, Secs. 2(b)(2), 2(d)(2). The terms
``transportation-related facility'' and ``non-transportation-related
facility'' are defined in a December 18, 1971 Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the Department and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) establishing jurisdictional guidelines for
implementing Sec. 1321(j)(1)(C). 36 FR 24080; reprinted at 40 CFR part
112 App. ``Transportation-related facilities'' include:
Highway vehicles and railroad cars which are used for the
transport of oil in interstate or intrastate commerce and the
equipment and appurtenances related thereto . . . . Excluded are
highway vehicles and railroad cars and motive power used exclusively
within the confines of a nontransportation related facility or
terminal facility and which are not intended for use in interstate
or intrastate commerce.
36 FR at 24081.
In 1992, the Secretary delegated to the RSPA Administrator his
prevention authority under Sec. 1321(j)(1)(C), 57 FR 8581 (Mar. 11,
1992), and his response plan authority under Sec. 1321(j)(5), 57 FR
62483 (Dec. 31, 1992), with respect to motor carriers and railways.
Subsequently, the authority to issue response plan requirements for
motor carriers and railways transporting oil incident to transfer to or
from vessels was redelegated by the Secretary to the Coast Guard
Commandant. 58 FR 6193 (Jan. 27, 1993).
Accordingly, the jurisdiction of Part 130 extends to all oil
transport by motor carriers and railways, with two exceptions. First,
the rule does not apply to transportation exclusively within the
confines of a non-transportation-related facility in a motor vehicle or
railroad car dedicated to transportation within that facility. These
motor vehicles and rail cars are considered non-transportation-related
facilities under the 1971 DOT-EPA MOU, and are not within DOT
jurisdiction. Response plan requirements applicable to these facilities
have been promulgated by EPA under 40 CFR part 112. See 59 FR 34070
(July 1, 1994), (pet. for reconsideration filed August 12, 1994).
Second, solely as to the Sec. 1321(j)(5) ``comprehensive'' response
plan requirements, set forth at Sec. 130.31(b), the rule does not apply
to motor vehicles and rail cars engaged in transportation incident to
the transfer of oil to or from vessels. The term ``transportation
incident to'' is to be read narrowly as encompassing only
transportation that (1) is distinct from transportation on public ways
and (2) solely facilitates transfer of the oil cargo to or from a
vessel. Response plan requirements under 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5) for these
transportation operations are within the authority of the Coast Guard
and were promulgated by the Coast Guard under 33 CFR part 154. See 61
FR 7890 (Feb. 29, 1996).
RSPA's delegated authority under Secs. 1321(j)(1)(C) and 1321(j)(5)
for certain on-shore facilities (i.e., motor vehicles and rolling
stock) is solely the authority to promulgate regulations. Spill
response plans, when required to be submitted, are submitted to the
Federal Highway Administration or the Federal Railroad Administration
for motor carriers and railways, respectively. 57 FR 62483. Because
RSPA's delegated authority does not provide for the review of response
plans for portable tanks, the requirement in Sec. 130.31(b)(6) to
submit such plans to the Associate Administrator for Hazardous
Materials Safety is removed.
The Coast Guard holds a delegation of authority to inspect motor
carrier and rail operations, investigate potential violations of Part
130 (including determinations of whether a carrier's basic response
plan conforms to requirements in Sec. 130.31(a)), and enforce the
regulations through administrative and civil penalties. See 33 U.S.C.
1321(b)(6), 1321(b)(7), 1321(m)(2); and 49 CFR 1.46(l); 57 FR 8581.
Also, authority to seek an injunction to compel compliance with any
provision of Part 130 has been delegated to the Coast Guard. E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54766, Sec. 6(b); and 49 CFR 1.46(m), 57 FR 8581.
Section 1321(j)(5), as amended by OPA, also mandates the issuance
of regulations requiring response plans for on-shore facility discharge
of hazardous substances. RSPA will address this mandate in a future
rulemaking.
Procedural History. On February 2, 1993, RSPA published an interim
final rule (IFR-1) with a request for comments. IFR-1 implemented the
mandates of 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(1)(C) and 1321(j)(5) with respect to
motor vehicles and railways by designating oil transported in bulk
(i.e., in a packaging of greater than 119 gallons) as a ``hazardous
material'' under section 104
[[Page 30534]]
of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 App. U.S.C. 1803 (now
codified at 49 U.S.C. 5103). This designation caused this category of
oil transport to be subject to the Hazardous Materials Regulations
(HMR), 49 CFR parts 171-180, and met the Sec. 1321(j)(1)(C) mandate by
subjecting bulk oil transport to the packaging, transportation and
emergency response requirements of the HMR. Additional response plan
requirements applicable to oil transported in bulk packagings in a
quantity greater than 42,000 gallons were incorporated into the HMR to
meet the specific mandate of 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5).
Most oils, notably flammable and combustible petroleum oils,
already are classed as hazardous materials. The greatest impact of IFR-
1 was on those materials defined as oils under 33 U.S.C. 1321 but not
already designated as hazardous materials, notably petroleum oils not
meeting HMR criteria of flammability or combustibility (e.g., lube and
cooling oils) and non-petroleum oils, including edible oils. Regulation
of these previously undesignated oils was mandated not for their
acutely hazardous properties, but for the environmental harm that their
release into the environment could cause. Regulating transportation of
environmentally sensitive materials by incorporating them into the HMR
framework has its precedents in (1) the statutory designation of
``hazardous substances'' as hazardous materials at 42 U.S.C. 9656(a);
and (2) the designation of ``marine pollutants'' as hazardous materials
to implement treaty obligations under Annex III of the 1973
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, as
modified by the Protocol of 1978, 57 FR 52930 (Nov. 5, 1992). These
regulatory actions address the environmental hazards of certain
materials when transported in bulk by all modes of transportation.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), RSPA issued an interim final
rule (IFR-1) rather than a notice of proposed rulemaking on the basis
of a finding that notice and public comment were impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. Under Sec. 4202(b)(4)(B) of the OPA,
no facility required to prepare a response plan under the statute was
permitted to handle, store or transport oil on or after February 18,
1993, unless the facility owner or operator had submitted its plan to
the President. RSPA determined that an interim final rule was necessary
in advance of the statutory deadline to establish response planning
thresholds by regulation and provide guidance to facility owners and
operators as to the applicability of the response plan requirements, so
that they might avoid the prohibition of Sec. 4202(b)(4)(B).
In the rule, RSPA requested comments and provided for a comment
period that closed on April 5, 1993. On the basis of requests submitted
to the docket, RSPA, on April 20, 1993, published an interim final rule
reopening the comment period until June 3, 1993, and scheduling a
public hearing for May 13, 1993. 58 FR 21260. Twenty-two
representatives of interested parties presented their views at the
public hearing. As of June 3, 1993, approximately 250 comments had been
received from interested members of the public, governmental agencies
and members of Congress.
After review of public comments, RSPA determined that significant
changes in IFR-1 were warranted. Foremost, the comments revealed that a
number of State and local jurisdictions use the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (Federal hazmat law) ``hazardous
material'' designation as a ``trigger'' for a variety of legal
requirements, many of which pertain to health and safety hazards, and
do not logically apply to the types of hazards (specifically
environmental hazards) posed by oils not already regulated under the
HMR. In addition, the comments indicated that the hazardous material
designation is a criterion in the transportation industry that
determines arrangements concerning insurance, transportation rates,
rail interlining and other matters. The comments suggested that
designating bulk quantities of oil not already designated as a
hazardous material potentially would cause the bulk transport of those
oils to be subject to insurance unavailability and increased costs and
dislocations not justified by the types of risks posed. Public comment
also supported changes to the substance of the prevention regulations,
including those concerning basic response plans.
Accordingly, on June 16, 1993, RSPA published a second interim
final rule (IFR-2), removing the regulations from the HMR and placing
them in Title 49 of the CFR under a newly established part 130. 58 FR
33302. In publishing IFR-2, RSPA sought to continue the timely and
uninterrupted implementation of the FWPCA and avoid creating an undue
hardship on the regulated community, with the potential to disrupt the
sale and delivery of oil.
For high flashpoint petroleum oils, and those non-petroleum oils
that were not previously subject to the HMR, IFR-2 also reduced the
scope and complexity of the prevention requirements from that
stipulated in IFR-1 by eliminating shipping paper, marking, labeling,
operational, hazardous materials training and registration
requirements. In addition, it raised the threshold for the application
of prevention requirements from that established in IFR-1. Whereas
under IFR-1 prevention requirements applied to all bulk oil transport,
under IFR-2, those requirements only applied to transport of petroleum
oil in packagings of 3,500 gallons or greater, and transport of non-
petroleum oil in packagings containing a quantity greater than 42,000
gallons.
Spill response plan requirements pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5)
did not change. They continued to apply to transportation of both
petroleum and non-petroleum oil in packagings containing a quantity
greater than 42,000 gallons.
IFR-2 provided for a third comment period, which ended on July 30,
1993. A public meeting, allowing for dialogue between RSPA and
interested members of the public, was held on June 28, 1993. All
comments submitted to the docket through IFR-1 and IFR-2 comment
periods, the public hearing and the public meeting have been considered
in developing this final rule.
Effective Dates. As indicated above, OPA mandates that no facility
required to prepare a comprehensive response plan may handle, store or
transport oil on or after February 18, 1993, unless the facility owner
or operator has submitted its plan to the President. Regulatory
requirements in IFR-1 implementing this mandate were contained in
Sec. 171.5(c), but now appear in Sec. 130.31(b). The current
requirements pertaining to the comprehensive response plan are
essentially unchanged from those published in IFR-1. No facility has
requested regulatory relief from the deadline to prepare and file a
comprehensive spill response plan, and the February 18, 1993 mandatory
compliance date appears to have had no effect on routine operations of
shippers or carriers. The requirements specified in Sec. 130.31(b)
remain effective since February 18, 1993.
RSPA has not granted requests from several commenters for an
extension of the mandatory compliance date for oil spill prevention and
containment requirements. Those requests ranged from a 60-day extension
to give fleet operators ample time to prepare response plans to a one-
year extension to give sufficient time for businesses to identify
materials subject to Part 130 and comply with the requirements. The
essential elements of this final rule are unchanged from the
requirements
[[Page 30535]]
specified in IFR-2. In addition, the scope of requirements in IFR-2 is
significantly less than that prescribed in IFR-1.
In consideration of the above, RSPA is denying all requests for an
extension of the effective date.
B. Definitions and Scope of Requirements
The following discussion is provided in response to commenters'
requests for clarification of the scope of Part 130:
``Onshore Facility''. In accordance with the definition of
``onshore facility'' at 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1321(a)(10), Sec. 130.2 (Scope)
is revised to clearly except transportation of oil by aircraft or
vessel. For consistency with the 1971 EPA-DOT MOU, Sec. 130.2 is
revised also to except oil transportation occurring exclusively within
the confines of non-transportation-related or terminal facilities in
vehicles not intended for use in interstate or intrastate commerce.
``Persons''. In this final rule, the definition of ``person'' at
Sec. 130.5 is revised for consistency with the FWPCA, 33 U.S.C.
1321(a)(7), 1323 and 1362(5). One commenter asked whether the rule
applies to States. This change affirms that these rules apply to
agencies of the Federal Government, as well as to those of States and
their political subdivisions, and to non-commercial enterprises that
offer oil for transportation or transport oil.
``Oil'' Includes Non-Petroleum Oil. Several commenters that ship or
transport non-petroleum oil asserted that Congress, in enacting the
OPA, did not intend that non-petroleum oil be included within the
definition of ``oil'' subject to response planning requirements under
the OPA.
The response planning requirements of the OPA were enacted as
amendments to the FWPCA at 33 U.S.C. 1321(j). The meaning of the term
``oil'' as it appears in those requirements, accordingly, is governed
by the FWPCA definition of oil applicable to Sec. 1321(j):
[O]il means oil of any kind or in any form, including, but not
limited to, petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed
with wastes other than dredged spoil.
33 U.S.C. 1321(a)(1). This definition was added to the FWPCA in 1972,
Pub.L. 92-500, Sec. 2, 86 Stat. 862, and has not been amended. In
applying the definition for purposes of oil spill prevention,
containment and removal programs under Sec. 1321(j)(1), see 40 CFR 112,
33 CFR parts 153-156, EPA and the Coast Guard consistently have
interpreted the term to encompass both petroleum and non-petroleum oil.
See 40 FR 28849 (July 9, 1975) (EPA notice that it interprets ``oil''
under Sec. 1321 to include non-petroleum oil, stating that the
interpretation ``is neither a departure from prior agency views, nor a
previously undisclosed position''). Non-petroleum oils fall within the
plain meaning of the statutory language, and regulation of non-
petroleum oils under 33 U.S.C. 1321 is in accord with the statutory
purpose of affording broad protection to the navigable waters,
shorelines and natural resources under Federal control.
``Oil'' Does Not Include Hazardous Substances. The definition of
``oil'' in Sec. 130.5 is amended so as to be identical to the
definition at Sec. 1321(a)(1) of the FWPCA. A note is added to make
clear, consistent with the FWPCA, that the requirements in Part 130 do
not apply to materials that are hazardous substances as defined at 40
CFR part 116. The list of hazardous substances appears at 40 CFR part
116, Appendix.
``Petroleum Oil.'' Commenters suggested that the phrase
``derivatives thereof'' in the definition of ``petroleum oil'' is
ambiguous and could be too broadly interpreted to include materials
(such as ethylene glycol) that do not possess the properties of oil.
RSPA agrees and has changed the definition of ``petroleum oil''
accordingly. The term ``fractions'' means oils produced by distillation
or their refined products.
Requirements Limited to Transportation of ``Oil'' as Cargoes.
Comments submitted by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)
contained a recommendation that the scope of these rules explicitly
include oil contained in fuel tanks of diesel locomotives. The DOI
cited two spills that resulted from train derailments and posed a
potential threat of significant impact to natural resources. RSPA has
not adopted this recommendation. RSPA notes that every railroad
transporting oil in a tank car is required to prepare and maintain at
least a basic spill response plan that may be employed to adequately
address potential threats posed by oil contained in fuel tanks. Also,
the limited scope of rules specified in Part 130 does not negate a
railroad's responsibility for cleanup and liability, under the FWPCA,
of oil discharged from a fuel tank.
Applicability to Oil in Liquid Form. In response to the numerous
comments asking for clarification as to the applicability of these
regulations to oil in its various forms, RSPA is amending Sec. 130.2
(Scope) to provide that this rule applies to oil in the liquid form
only. This provision is adopted so as to apply requirements for
prevention, containment, and response planning in Part 130 to that form
of oil which poses the greatest threat to the marine environment.
To assist shippers in determining if a material is a liquid, RSPA
is adopting in this final rule a relatively simple test developed by
the American Society for Testing and Materials in its standard ASTM D
4359-84, ``Standard Test Method for Determining Whether a Material is a
Liquid or a Solid.'' Under this standard, many viscous materials, like
number six diesel fuel and some grades of asphalt, are included in the
definition of liquid. Conversely, on the basis of this standard,
solidified tars and other oils having a relatively high melting point
may not be subject to Part 130, nor will oil-containing materials like
soybean meal and cotton seeds.
Mixtures and Solutions Containing Oil. A number of comments
suggested that the rule exclude materials containing only a small
proportion of oil in mixture or solution. RSPA's proposal at the June
28, 1993 public meeting to exclude mixtures and solutions in which oil
is in a concentration by weight of less than 10 percent drew broad
support from many persons commenting on IFR-2. This exclusion considers
that the volume of oil contained in many products is at levels which
pose no serious harm to the marine environment within the meaning of 33
U.S.C. 1321(j). This exception considers numerous comments to the
docket, under IFR-1, that support adoption of an exception for oil in
mixtures and solution.
RSPA's determination to apply a mixtures rule that uses a threshold
value of 10 percent oil parallels its regulation under Federal hazmat
law of hazardous substances that pose a threat to the marine
environment. Since 1980, RSPA has provided an exception from
application of the HMR for mixtures and solutions containing, in a
concentration by weight of less than 10 percent, hazardous substances
with an EPA-designated ``reportable quantity'' value of 5,000 pounds.
This determination is specific to prevention, containment, and response
planning requirements under Part 130. As noted above concerning
application of the requirements in Part 130 to oil contained in
integral fuel tanks of a locomotive, this action does not provide
carriers with a general exception from responsibility for cleanup and
liability under the FWPCA for the discharge of dilute mixtures
containing oil. Therefore, we recommend that all carriers incorporate
within their operations plans effective measures to prevent oil spills
and to mitigate the effects of discharges of oil which do occur.
[[Page 30536]]
Container Residue. One commenter requested an exception for bulk
packagings containing oil residue on the basis that the amount
remaining in the packaging may be less than an unregulated quantity of
oil in a non-bulk packaging. RSPA has not adopted that suggestion. The
empty return of most bulk packagings is accomplished by the same
carrier that transported the filled container. Thus, the relief
available to the carrier is negligible, particularly when it would
necessitate a requirement to determine and document the amount of
residue. In addition, RSPA believes that an exception is not warranted
because it is important that all closures remain properly secured, as
required by Sec. 130.21, even after unloading, as long as oil residue
remains present.
C. Prevention and Containment Requirements
General. The bulk of oils transported by motor vehicle and railway,
including petroleum oils like gasoline and fuel oil and some non-
petroleum oils like turpentine, already are classed as hazardous
materials under Federal hazmat law because of their threats to health
and safety. RSPA's implementation of the Sec. 1321(j)(1)(C) mandate to
issue regulations to prevent and contain oil discharges in motor
vehicle and railway transport proceeds from the fact that these oils,
which also are the oils of greatest environmental concern, are subject
to the comprehensive regulatory framework of the HMR. Transportation of
these oils must meet detailed requirements in the HMR pertaining to
specification packaging, hazard communication (marking, placarding, 24-
hour emergency response telephone numbers, shipping papers, etc.),
loading and unloading operations, and routing. See generally 49 CFR
parts 171-180. In addition, each employee of a person offering for
transportation or transporting an oil that is a hazardous material must
receive training specific to the hazardous materials-related functions
he or she performs. 49 CFR 172.700. Basic spill response planning and
response plan implementation under Sec. 1321(j)(1)(C) (in addition to
comprehensive planning under Sec. 1321(j)(5)) appropriately supplement
these requirements. The record of safe transportation of these oils
supports the conclusion that no additional spill prevention or
containment requirements are necessary.
The volume of petroleum oil shipped by highway and rail not subject
to the HMR is small by comparison with the total volume. Most of this
oil is lubricating oil and includes an increasing amount of used oil
intended for recycling. As noted by commenters, petroleum oil has
toxic, solvent and physical properties that pose a threat to the marine
environment which RSPA seeks to minimize through the prevention and
containment requirements specified in Part 130. These regulations apply
to petroleum oils offered for transportation or transported in bulk
packagings having a capacity of 3,500 gallons or more. RSPA believes
these requirements provide an adequate degree of protection for the
marine environment at a cost commensurate with the risk posed by this
class of oils.
The prevention requirements apply to non-petroleum oils, both
because Sec. 1321(j)(1)(C) mandates reasonable measures to prevent and
contain discharges of these oils, and because their physical properties
can harm the environment. On the basis of its review of reported
incidents involving spills of non-petroleum oils on rail lines and
public highways, RSPA determined that the frequency and volume of such
discharges, generally does not support application of the rules and
regulations in Part 130 to the same extent as required for petroleum
oils. Thus, while the same prevention and containment requirements
specified in Part 130 for petroleum oils pertain to non-petroleum oils,
RSPA applies those rules at a higher threshold value (i.e., quantities
greater than 42,000 gallons in a single packaging). These prevention
and containment requirements complement the comprehensive response plan
requirement triggered at the same quantity threshold.
Comments submitted to the docket suggest that some non-petroleum
oil such as turpentine and tung oil possesses toxicity, solvent and
physical properties warranting that its transportation be subject to
spill prevention and containment requirements at the lower, 3,500-
gallon threshold applicable to petroleum oil. While it may be
appropriate to make regulatory distinctions among petroleum or non-
petroleum oils to account for the different risks that particular oils
present to the marine environment, the docket does not contain
sufficient information on the properties of specific oils for RSPA to
make substantive regulatory distinctions other than between petroleum
and non-petroleum oil.
The rule adopts general definitions that establish three categories
of non-petroleum oil: ``animal fat,'' ``vegetable oil'' and ``other
non-petroleum oil.'' The last group includes, for example, synthetic
oils, essential oils such as turpentine, and oils otherwise meeting the
definition of an animal fat or a vegetable oil but specifically
excluded from that category through rulemaking. This subcategorization
of non-petroleum oils has no practical significance at this time, as
all non-petroleum oils are subject to the same prevention and response
planning requirements. It may provide an initial framework, however,
for future RSPA rulemaking to refine the prevention and response
planning regulations in Part 130.
Packaging. A number of commenters requested clarification regarding
the packaging requirement for oil in bulk transport vehicles.
Specifically, they questioned whether RSPA interprets Sec. 130.21 to
require DOT specification cargo tanks, such as the MC-306 commonly used
for gasoline and other volatile liquids. Section 130.21 does not
require specification containers. For those oils not subject to the
HMR, a non-specification cargo tank that conforms to the basic
requirements of Sec. 130.21 is acceptable.
Basic Response Planning as an Element of Prevention Standards. Part
130 contains basic response plan requirements applicable to
transportation of petroleum oil in a bulk packaging with a capacity of
3,500 gallons or more. The 3,500-gallon capacity threshold is the same
threshold used to subject shippers and carriers to the registration
requirement under Federal hazmat law, 49 U.S.C. 5108. Also, the Federal
Highway Administration's financial responsibility requirement, 49 CFR
part 387, applies to motor carriers that transport hazardous substances
in cargo tanks, portable tanks, or hopper-type vehicles with capacities
in excess of 3,500 water gallons.
In IFR-1, RSPA prescribed requirements for preparation of basic
response plans as part of prevention and containment requirements
applicable to shipments of oil in bulk packagings having a capacity
greater than 119 gallons. Comments to the docket suggested that the
119-gallon threshold was unnecessarily low since, under conditions
normally incident to transportation, a discharge of oil in that volume
will not threaten the marine environment to an extent warranting
mandatory spill response plan preparation.
On the basis of its review of those comments, RSPA revised the
threshold for applying prevention and containment requirements,
including the requirement to prepare a basic response plan, from all
bulk packagings to those having a capacity of 3,500
[[Page 30537]]
gallons or more. The 3,500-gallon threshold was selected, in part,
because of its use in related programs for emergency response and
carrier liability. Specifically, registration requirements under
Federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5108, and
Federal Highway Administration financial responsibility requirements
for the transportation of hazardous substances, 49 CFR part 387, are
keyed to the 3,500-gallon threshold.
Response Plan Implementation. With respect to the prevention,
containment and cleanup of oil discharges, the scope of 33 U.S.C. 1321
extends to discharges into the navigable waters of the United States,
the shorelines of those waters, and natural resources belonging to,
appertaining to, or under the exclusive management authority of the
United States. 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(1)(A); see also 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(3)
(prohibiting discharges to navigable waters, shorelines and natural
resources). ``Navigable waters'' under this rule has the meaning given
to it at 40 CFR 110.1. One commenter stated that response planning
requirements should apply only to transportation where a discharge
could reach one of these three areas. Because virtually all
transportation of oil poses a potential risk to these areas, the
response planning requirements of Sec. 130.31 apply to the full range
of transportation indicated in Sec. 130.2. The Sec. 130.33 requirement
that the transporter implement its response plan to contain and remove
a discharge, however, applies only when the discharge falls within the
jurisdiction of Sec. 1321, as described above and set forth at
Sec. 130.33.
RSPA recognizes that when a discharge has occurred, it may be
difficult to determine immediately and with certainty that the
discharge has not reached, or does not substantially threaten to reach,
navigable waters, shorelines, or Federally controlled natural
resources. Because the determination, for practical purposes, will be
made by the Coast Guard (in the coastal zone) or EPA (in the inland
zone), the operator is advised to begin to implement its response plan
wherever a discharge occurs. In addition, Part 130 does not affect the
applicability of other Federal, State, local or Indian tribe
requirements that may impose response obligations on the transporter.
Accordingly, while Sec. 130.33 is binding only with respect to
discharges that reach or threaten to reach navigable waters, shorelines
or Federally controlled natural resources, RSPA strongly encourages
transporters to take all appropriate response actions regardless of the
location of a spill.
With respect to the comprehensive response plan at Sec. 130.31(b),
applicable to the transportation of more than 42,000 gallons of oil in
a single packaging, Sec. 1321(j)(5)(C)(i) mandates that a response plan
shall be consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The
requirement for a basic response plan for transportation of petroleum
oil in bulk packagings of 3,500 gallons or greater (but in an amount
not exceeding 42,000 gallons), is issued as a prevention and
containment rule pursuant to Sec. 1321(j)(1)(C). Nevertheless, 33
U.S.C. 1321(c)(3)(B) states that any action taken by a transporter in
response to a discharge that reaches or threatens to reach navigable
waters, shorelines or Federally controlled natural resources must be
consistent with the NCP, or as directed by the President. (The
President's authority is delegated, through the EPA Administrator and
the Secretary of Transportation, to the Federal on-scene coordinator.
E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, Sec. 3.) Section 130.33 emphasizes that the
transporter's obligation to implement its response plan does not excuse
it from compliance with 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(3)(B) or any other legal
response obligations.
D. Response Planning Requirements Mandated by the OPA (33 U.S.C.
1321(j)(5))
Section 130.31(b) contains requirements for comprehensive response
plans for oil transportation in bulk packagings in a quantity greater
than 42,000 gallons (1,000 barrels) per packaging. Bulk packagings
include cargo tanks (tank trucks), railroad tank cars and portable
tanks. This section fulfills the FWPCA mandate for regulations
requiring response plans to be prepared by an owner or operator of an
onshore facility that, ``because of its location, could reasonably be
expected to cause substantial harm to the environment by discharging
into [or] on the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines.'' 33 U.S.C.
1321(j)(5). The comprehensive response plan is more extensive than the
basic response plan under Sec. 1321(j)(l)(C); the comprehensive plan
must meet the content and submission requirements of
Sec. 1321(j)(5)(C).
RSPA's identification of 42,000 gallons as the threshold for so-
called ``substantial harm'' facilities received many comments. Those
comments suggested alternate thresholds ranging from 10,000 to
1,000,000 gallons, as well as a finding that no motor vehicle or
railway facility meets the ``substantial harm'' standard. Ten thousand
gallons defines a major inland zone spill under the NCP. 40 CFR 300.5
(``Size classes of discharges''). The EPA selected one million gallons
as the threshold for fixed ``substantial harm'' facilities under
certain circumstances. 33 CFR 112.20(f)(1)(ii) (published at 59 FR
34099) (July 1, 1994).
None of the alternative thresholds suggested by commenters was
accompanied by objective data that would support the threshold any
commenter proposed. At the low end of the range, a standard of 250-
barrel (10,500 gallon) vessel oil cargo capacity is applied by the U.S.
Coast Guard for transfers of oil between vessels and mobile or fixed
transfer facilities. The Coast Guard designated mobile transfer
facilities as ``substantial harm'' facilities. It designated fixed
facilities as facilities that could reasonably be expected to cause
``significant and substantial harm'' to the environment in the event of
a discharge. 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5)(D). The response plan for a facility
in this category, under Sec. 1321(j)(5)(D), must be submitted to the
Coast Guard for review and approval. A lower threshold is justified for
these facilities by the fact that the probability of an oil spill to
the marine environment is greater during oil transfer between land and
a vessel than during transportation over railways and highways.
Conversely, the 1,000,000-gallon threshold adopted by EPA is
contingent on several factors, including restrictive provisions that
the facility may not transfer oil over water to or from vessels and
that the facility's proximity to a public drinking water intake must be
sufficiently distant to assure that the intake would not be shut down
in the event of a discharge. Further, the EPA threshold refers to the
capacity not of a single fixed storage tank, but of the entire
facility, including barrels and drums stored at the facility. In
summary, this example also is not analogous to hazards routinely
encountered during transportation by railway and highway.
During the June 28, 1993 public meeting, the ``substantial harm''
threshold was discussed at length, but participants did not agree on
what volume of oil reasonably could cause substantial harm to the
marine environment. Also, the 42,000-gallon threshold is supported by a
number of comments to the docket citing its use by the EPA in related
sections of the Code of Federal Regulations. Consequently, RSPA
believes its determination to use a threshold value of 42,000 gallons
in a single packaging is appropriate and reasonable.
[[Page 30538]]
Regarding use of 42,000 gallons as the threshold for the
comprehensive response plan requirement, the Association of American
Railroads suggested that the rule discriminates against the railroad
industry, as only it, and not the trucking industry, has the potential
to transport that quantity of oil in a single packaging. The rule does
not discriminate against the railroad industry. Rather, it operates
differently as between the two industries due to the fact that the
railroad industry is capable of transporting a larger quantity of oil
in a single bulk packaging. The risk to the marine environment posed by
oil in transport is proportional to the quantity of oil that could be
discharged in an accident, and the rule, reasonably, regulates on that
basis. Where other factors such as proximity to navigable waters gain
in importance, both motor vehicle and railway transport are subject to
comprehensive planning requirements. See 58 FR 7330 (Coast Guard
interim final rule). RSPA notes again that, on the basis of available
information, no rail carrier is transporting oil in a quantity greater
than 42,000 gallons in tank cars.
E. Contents of Comprehensive and Basic Response Plans
Several commenters requested guidance for preparing spill response
plans under Sec. 130.31(a) and (b). The purposes of the response plan
are to ensure: (1) that personnel are trained and available and
equipment is in place to respond to an oil spill; and (2) that
procedures are established before a spill occurs so that required
notifications and appropriate response actions will follow
expeditiously when there is a spill. The response plan, whether the
basic plan under Sec. 130.31(a) or the comprehensive plan under
Sec. 130.31(b), should be a complete and practical document that serves
these purposes.
Neither the basic nor the comprehensive plan is required to address
response on a vehicle- or location-specific basis. A nationwide,
regional or other generic plan is acceptable, provided that it covers
the range of spill scenarios that the owner or operator foreseeably
could encounter. Thus, scenarios ranging from a minor discharge to a
``maximum potential discharge,'' Sec. 130.31(a)(2), or a ``worst case
discharge,'' Sec. 130.31(b)(4), should be addressed, as well as the
range of topographical and climatological conditions the owner or
operator may face. The plan also should describe the response when the
discharge results from, or is accompanied by, a complicating condition,
such as explosion or fire.
The comprehensive plan should, at a minimum, specify and discuss
the following:
(1) The range of response scenarios that foreseeably could occur.
(2) The qualified individual, the alternate qualified individual,
and all other personnel with a role in spill response.
(3) The training, including drills, required for each of these
persons.
(4) The equipment necessary for response to the maximum extent
practicable in each of the identified scenarios.
(5) The means by which the availability of personnel and equipment
will be ensured to respond to a spill to the maximum extent
practicable.
(6) Governmental officials and others to be notified in the event
of a spill, and the notification procedure to be followed.
(7) The means for communicating among responsible personnel and
between personnel and officials during a response.
(8) The procedures to be followed during a response.
The basic response plan should address the same topics, with the
exceptions that training and drills are not required for identified
personnel and the owner or operator need not demonstrate by ``contract
or other means'' the assurance of personnel and equipment availability.
In this final rule, RSPA reiterates its intent that a basic response
plan must identify private sector resources (personnel and equipment)
that the carrier may immediately call upon to respond to a discharge of
oil. This regulatory intent is clarified by amending Sec. 130.31(a)(3)
to require identification of ``private personnel and equipment
available to respond to a discharge.''
The Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association asked RSPA to
provide model plans. RSPA does not believe this is necessary, but is
allowing owners and operators the flexibility to develop plans that
best address their circumstances. Following issuance of IFR-1, RSPA
undertook an effort to develop a model plan, but subsequently learned
that two industry associations were developing models that would be
available to a large segment of the affected industries. Consequently,
RSPA decided not to duplicate the private sector effort, and the
project to develop a model plan was terminated. Owners and operators
may wish to refer to the model plans developed by industry associations
or they may refer to the model plan included by EPA at Appendix F of
its July 1, 1994 final rule. 59 FR 34122.
Many owners and operators required to prepare and maintain a
response plan under this rule also will be subject to EPA response plan
requirements for fixed facilities, or Coast Guard response plan
requirements for marine-related facilities. As RSPA stated in the
preamble to the February 2, 1993 interim final rule, 58 FR 6866, it is
intended that owners and operators subject to response planning
requirements of both RSPA and another Federal agency be able to use
response planning activities to fulfill both sets of requirements, with
appropriate modification or supplementation as differences in spill
scenarios dictate. Accordingly, RSPA will seek to maintain consistency
with other agencies in its interpretation of terms and concepts
contained in 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5). In addition, RSPA is including, in
Sec. 130.5, the following definitions:
Qualified individual is an individual familiar with the response
plan, trained in his or her responsibilities in implementing the plan,
and authorized, on behalf of the owner or operator, to initiate all
response activities identified in the plan, to enter into response-
related contracts and obligate funds for such contracts, and to act as
a liaison with the on-scene coordinator and other responsible
officials. The qualified individual must be available at all times the
owner or operator is engaged in transportation subject to Part 130
(alone or in conjunction with an equally qualified alternate), must be
fluent in English, and must have in his or her possession documentation
of the required authority.
By contract or other means means (1) a written contract with a
response contractor identifying and ensuring the availability of the
necessary personnel or equipment within the shortest practicable time;
(2) a written certification by the owner or operator that the necessary
personnel or equipment can and will be made available by the owner or
operator within the shortest practicable time; or (3) documentation of
membership in an oil spill response organization that ensures the
owner's or operator's access to the necessary personnel or equipment
within the shortest practicable time.
Maximum extent practicable means the limits of available technology
and the practical and technical limits on an owner or operator
conducting response activities under a particular set of circumstances.
Worst-case discharge for an onshore facility is defined at 33
U.S.C. 1321(a)(24) as ``the largest foreseeable discharge in adverse
weather
[[Page 30539]]
conditions.'' The largest foreseeable discharge from a motor vehicle or
rail car is the capacity of the cargo container. The term ``maximum
potential discharge,'' used in Sec. 130.31(a), is synonymous with
``worst-case discharge.''
F. Federal Preemption
RSPA received two comments concerning the effect that the RSPA rule
will have on the existing and future regulation of oil transportation
by States and localities. Part 130 is issued under authority of 33
U.S.C. 1321(j)(1) (C) and 1321(j)(5). For this reason, it is subject to
33 U.S.C. 1321(o)(2), which states:
Nothing in this section shall be construed as preempting any
State or political subdivision thereof from imposing any requirement
or liability with respect to the discharge of oil or hazardous
substance into any waters within such State, or with respect to any
removal activities related to such discharge.
This provision indicates that Federal regulation under 33 U.S.C.
1321 does not preempt, but rather accommodates, regulation by States
and political subdivisions concerning the same subject matter. Thus,
the establishment of oil spill prevention and response plan
requirements in this rule will affect neither existing State and local
regulation in the area, nor State and local authority to regulate in
the future. RSPA has not received any comments from State or local
governments on this issue.
The American Trucking Associations (ATA) requested that RSPA return
to the approach abandoned in IFR-2 of designating oil transported in
the relevant bulk quantity as a hazardous material, and issuing the
final rule under joint authority of the FWPCA and Federal hazmat law.
The ATA seeks in this way to give the rule the preemptive effect over
non-Federal regulation that Federal hazmat law provides. Unlike the
preservation of State and local authority under 33 U.S.C. 1321, Federal
hazmat law provides for extensive preemption of non-Federal
requirements. 49 U.S.C. 5125.
Promulgation of oil spill prevention and response planning
regulations under both the FWPCA and Federal hazmat law would not
necessarily result in the preemptive effect the commenter desires.
Section 5125 provides for preemption of non-Federal requirements only
to the extent those requirements are not otherwise authorized by
Federal law. As cited above, 33 U.S.C. 1321(o)(2) explicitly preserves
the authority of non-Federal jurisdictions to regulate oil spill
prevention and response. Whether this constitutes Federal authority
sufficient to insulate non-Federal requirements regulating in this area
from Federal hazmat law preemption is a question that has not been
decided and, as noted below, is not decided here.
More importantly, Federal oil transportation regulations should
carry the preemptive force of Federal hazmat law only when they are
issued to implement the mandate of that law.
As explained above, RSPA has determined not to exercise its
authority under Federal hazmat law to regulate oil that does not meet
the definition of any hazard-specific class under the HMR, and is not
an elevated temperature material, a hazardous substance or a hazardous
waste. Accordingly, Part 130 is issued solely under FWPCA authority,
and the preemption standards of 49 U.S.C. 5125 do not apply.
The Chemical Waste Transportation Institute asks RSPA to clarify
the extent to which 33 U.S.C. 1321(o)(2) authorizes non-Federal
regulation of hazardous materials different from or additional to the
HMR with respect to emergency response training, equipping vehicles
with personal protective equipment, incident reporting, emergency
drills, insurance, or response plan maintenance. Under 49 U.S.C. 5125,
a non-Federal requirement that otherwise would be preempted is not
preempted if it is otherwise authorized by Federal law. The commenter
requests a finding that Sec. 1321(o)(2) does not ``otherwise
authorize'' non-Federal regulation of oils that are designated
hazardous materials.
The commenter, in short, asks whether 33 U.S.C. 1321(o)(2)
constitutes, under 49 U.S.C. 5125, an ``authorization'' of non-Federal
regulation that otherwise would be preempted by the HMR. This question
will become pertinent when a non-Federal requirement concerning oil
spill prevention or response is challenged as contrary to the HMR. The
rule issued today neither limits nor expands non-Federal authority to
regulate oil transportation, and has no bearing on how Sec. 1321(o)(2)
is interpreted. The question the commenter poses, accordingly, is
outside the scope of this rulemaking, and it is not appropriate for
RSPA to decide it here.
Section 5125 provides for a formal administrative determination of
preemption, on application of a party directly affected by a specific
requirement of a State, State subdivision or Indian tribe. When an
application is filed with RSPA concerning a specific non-Federal
requirement regulating the transportation of oil designated as a
hazardous material, and the jurisdiction maintaining that requirement
claims that it is authorized by 33 U.S.C. 1321(o)(2), RSPA will examine
the relationship between Sec. 1321(o)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 5125.
G. Other Substantive Issues Addressed by Commenters
Linking FWPCA and Federal Hazmat Authority for Oils That Are
Hazardous Materials. One commenter, a State agency, suggested that as
to oils that already are designated hazardous materials, Part 130 be
incorporated by reference into the HMR. According to the commenter,
this would allow the State to enforce Part 130, with respect to oils
designated as hazardous materials, directly through its existing
regulatory structure. In addition, it would place the responsibility
for enforcing Part 130, with respect to those oils, with the State
agency responsible for enforcing the HMR as to those oils.
RSPA is not adopting this suggestion. Significant confusion could
result from issuing Part 130 under the FWPCA as to certain oils and
under both the FWPCA and Federal hazmat law as to certain other oils.
In addition, the Federal authority to enforce oil transportation
regulations under Federal hazmat law and those under the FWPCA lies
with different agencies-- in the former case, the Federal Railroad
Administration, the Federal Highway Administration and RSPA and, in the
latter, the Coast Guard and EPA. Incorporation by reference of some
portion of Part 130 into the HMR would result in duplicative and
potentially inconsistent enforcement, to the detriment of the regulated
community. Under 33 U.S.C. 1321(o)(2), a State may adopt Part 130
verbatim, or may enact other laws with respect to oil spill prevention
and response. The rule does not constrain the State's ability to
regulate in this area or to determine what State body is to implement
the regulations that are enacted.
Documentation to Accompany Shipments of Oil. Section 130.11(b)
prohibits transporting oil subject to this part unless a readily
available document indicating that the shipment contains oil is in the
possession of the transport vehicle operator during transportation.
This section drew comments from the Association of American Railroads
and several railroad companies, contending that the requirement is
burdensome and serves no purpose. They state that the predominant
practice in the railroad industry is to generate commodity descriptions
from a computerized Standard Transportation Commodity Code, but that
system does not easily accommodate unique shipping paper information,
especially for shipments
[[Page 30540]]
handled by several carriers. These commenters suggest that their
response to any incident involving oil will be just as timely and
appropriate absent the specific identification of each commodity that
meets the definition of oil.
RSPA is retaining this requirement. It does not agree that the
requirement is unnecessarily burdensome. Train crews currently carry a
manifest that specifically identifies each car and its contents.
Frequently the manifest is the only source of information available to
first responders to an incident, and RSPA believes it is important that
responders be able to immediately identify shipments of oil that
potentially threaten the environment. RSPA emphasizes that this
requirement can be met by an appropriate notation on currently used
transportation documents. Thus, there is no need to create a new
document.
The Association of American Railroads requests that the word
``knowingly'' be added between the words ``may'' and ``transport'' in
Sec. 130.11(b), so that a carrier would not be held responsible for
identifying oil shipments unless the shipper has informed the carrier
that the cargo presented for transport includes oil. The commenter
states that the carrier depends on the shipper for commodity
identification.
RSPA is not adopting this request. Sections 1321(b) (6) and (7) of
33 U.S.C. set forth the circumstances under which administrative and
civil penalties may be levied for violation of Part 130. These sections
do not provide that a carrier is subject to penalties for violating
Part 130 only when it has knowledge of facts that bring it within the
compass of the regulations. Rather, the statute imposes a strict
liability standard, placing the burden on the carrier affirmatively to
determine whether it is carrying cargo that subjects it to requirements
under Part 130. Indeed, the change the commenter proposes, by excusing
compliance with the regulation absent actual carrier knowledge that it
was transporting oil, would encourage the carrier to remain ignorant of
its cargo. This would not further the statutory goal of improving oil
spill prevention and containment. Under Sec. 130.11, the shipper must
provide the carrier a document indicating that the shipment includes
oil; at the same time, the carrier independently must take whatever
steps it finds reasonable to satisfy itself that it either is or is not
accepting oil for shipment.
In response to a question from a commenter, RSPA acknowledges that
a shipper may use a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) to notify a
carrier that a shipment contains oil, and a carrier may use an MSDS to
accompany a shipment during transportation. This acknowledgement
presumes that the MSDS accurately and clearly identifies the material
as an oil.
Several commenters requested clarification as to placing the
``oil'' notation on a hazardous materials shipping paper. If the proper
shipping name or technical name of a hazardous material that meets the
definition of ``oil'' does not reflect that it is an oil, then the word
``oil'' may be separately added or appear with the product name, trade
name or other information associated with that material on the shipping
paper in addition to required descriptions, consistent with 49 CFR
172.201(a)(4).
Finally, RSPA is adding a list of common shipping descriptions that
it believes effectively communicate that the materials are oil, thereby
precluding the need to specifically add the word ``oil'' to shipping
documents. The list of common shipping names is added at Sec. 130.11.
Requirements Based on Packaging Capacity vs. Those Based on Volume.
Several comments suggested that the rule is inconsistent in applying
basic response planning requirements and prevention and containment
requirements to shipments of petroleum oil in packagings with a
capacity of 3,500 gallons or larger and applying comprehensive response
plan requirements, and prevention and containment requirements for non-
petroleum oils, to shipments in a volume of more than 42,000 gallons in
a single packaging.
Applying prevention and containment requirements for petroleum oil
on the basis of the container capacity is warranted by the practical
problems that would result from applying them on the basis of actual
volume of oil present. Vehicles transporting petroleum oil in the
volume range of 3,500 gallons typically make more than one stop in
delivering the full cargo they are carrying. Determining the actual
volume of oil present at any given time would require accurate flow
metering devices capable of accounting for temperature variations.
Further, Federal, State and local authorities conducting on-the-road
enforcement inspections would be unable to determine whether the
regulations applied to a given shipment absent a means to measure the
volume of the cargo. RSPA expects that most petroleum oil cargo tanks
and tank trucks with a capacity of 3,500 gallons or larger at some time
will be used to transport 3,500 gallons or more of petroleum oil, so
that the owner or operator will be required to prepare a basic response
plan in any event. The burden of these vehicles' complying with
packaging and communication requirements in those cases when they are
carrying less than 3,500 gallons is small enough to justify the
administratively simpler approach of basing the applicability of
prevention and containment requirements on vehicle cargo capacity.
Conversely, oil shipments in single packagings of more than 42,000
gallons will be few and limited to railroad tank cars. Any shipment of
this volume that does occur likely would be to a single consignee, so
that in-transit volume measurements would not be necessary. Further,
comprehensive response plan requirements under 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5) are
addressed to oil transport that meets a specified (``substantial
harm'') environmental risk threshold. RSPA's conclusion that oil volume
is the relevant criterion in determining environmental risk makes it
reasonable that the applicability of comprehensive response plan
requirements depend on the volume of oil being transported in the tank
car.
H. Interagency Coordination
In addition to RSPA's rulemakings in this docket (PC-1) and Docket
PS-130, Response Plans for Onshore Oil Pipelines, three other Federal
agencies recently have completed or presently are engaged in rulemaking
to implement the spill response planning mandate of 33 U.S.C.
1321(j)(5) within their areas of jurisdiction. These Federal agencies
are the U.S. Coast Guard (vessels and marine transportation-related
facilities); the EPA (non-transportation-related onshore facilities);
and the Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service (DOI/
MMS) (offshore oil production facilities). RSPA believes that the five
sets of regulations should be consistent to the extent practicable,
recognizing that the risk of and damage from spills from different
types of facilities and vessels require that distinctions be made.
The importance of consistency among the regulations of the
different agencies implementing Sec. 1321(j) generally has been
expressed in a September 10, 1993 letter to RSPA's Acting Administrator
from the National Response Team (NRT). The NRT is responsible under the
NCP for national coordination of oil spill response planning. 40 CFR
300.110. RSPA is the DOT representative on the NRT, and RSPA's
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety chaired the NRT
Prevention Committee.
[[Page 30541]]
RSPA has met to discuss these issues with representatives of the
USCG, EPA and MMS. The meetings have included participation by
representatives of the trustees for natural resources managed or
protected by the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture and Commerce.
These meetings were informal sessions in which staff members of the
interested agencies came together to discuss differences in regulations
issued under the authority of 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1321(j).
RSPA will continue to coordinate with the Coast Guard, EPA and MMS,
as well as other member agencies of the NRT. In the future, RSPA may
undertake rulemaking to consider modifications of the rule as a result
of this coordination. In addition, RSPA may evaluate the adequacy of
these rules and regulations in light of Area Contingency Plans (ACP's)
prepared by representatives of Federal, State and local agencies. Under
33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(4)(C)(ii), each ACP shall describe the area covered
by the plan, including the areas of specific economic or environmental
importance that might be damaged by a discharge. Should it be
determined that any of these specific environments may be inadequately
protected against the threats posed by the transportation of oil in a
motor vehicle or rail car, RSPA may reopen this docket to consider
additional requirements for response planning, or spill prevention and
containment, to address those threats. For example, RSPA could, through
rulemaking, establish criteria and procedures for case-by-case
designation of facilities subject to response planning requirements.
II. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This final rule is considered a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and was reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget. The rule is considered significant under the
Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation
(44 FR 11034) because of public and congressional interest. A
regulatory evaluation is available for review in the docket.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. While this rule
applies to numerous shippers and carriers of oil in bulk, some of whom
are small entities, the spill prevention and response planning
requirements contained herein will not result in a significantly
adverse economic impact.
C. Executive Order 12612
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria in Executive Order 12612 (``Federalism'') and does not
have sufficient federalism impacts to warrant the preparation of a
federalism statement.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection requirements applicable to written oil spill
response plans are unchanged in substance and amount of burden from
those previously approved under Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
control number 2137-0591 (extended to: June 30, 1996). RSPA will
request reinstatement and revision of this approval from OMB and will
display, through publication in the Federal Register, the valid control
number upon approval by OMB. Public comment on this request was invited
through publication of a Federal Register notice on March 5, 1996 (61
FR 8706). Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no person is
required to respond to a requirement for collection of information
unless the requirement displays a valid OMB control number.
E. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR part 130
Incorporation by reference, Oil, Response plans, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 130 is revised to
read as follows:
PART 130--OIL SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE PLANS
Sec.
130.1 Purpose.
130.2 Scope.
130.3 General requirements.
130.5 Definitions.
130.11 Communication requirements.
130.21 Packaging requirements.
130.31 Response plans.
130.33 Response plan implementation.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321.
Sec. 130.1 Purpose.
This part prescribes prevention, containment and response planning
requirements of the Department of Transportation applicable to
transportation of oil by motor vehicles and rolling stock.
Sec. 130.2 Scope.
(a) The requirements of this part apply to--
(1) Any liquid petroleum oil in a packaging having a capacity of
3,500 gallons or more; and
(2) Any liquid petroleum or non-petroleum oil in a quantity greater
than 42,000 gallons per packaging.
(b) The requirements of this part have no effect on--
(1) The applicability of the Hazardous Materials Regulations set
forth in Subchapter C of this chapter; and
(2) The discharge notification requirements of the United States
Coast Guard (33 CFR part 153) and EPA (40 CFR part 110).
(c) The requirements of this part do not apply to--
(1) Any mixture or solution in which oil is in a concentration by
weight of less than 10 percent.
(2) Transportation of oil by aircraft or vessel.
(3) Any petroleum oil carried in a fuel tank for the purpose of
supplying fuel for propulsion of the transport vehicle to which it is
attached.
(4) Oil transport exclusively within the confines of a non-
transportation-related or terminal facility in a vehicle not intended
for use in interstate or intrastate commerce (see 40 CFR part 112,
appendix A).
(d) The requirements in Sec. 130.31(b) of this part do not apply to
mobile marine transportation-related facilities (see 33 CFR part 154).
Sec. 130.3 General requirements.
No person may offer or accept for transportation or transport oil
subject to this part unless that person--
(a) Complies with this part; and
(b) Has been instructed on the applicable requirements of this
part.
Sec. 130.5 Definitions.
In this subchapter: Animal fat means a non-petroleum oil, fat, or
grease derived from animals, not specifically identified elsewhere in
this part.
Contract or other means is:
(1) A written contract with a response contractor identifying and
ensuring the availability of the necessary personnel or equipment
within the shortest practicable time;
(2) A written certification by the owner or operator that the
necessary
[[Page 30542]]
personnel or equipment can and will be made available by the owner or
operator within the shortest practicable time; or
(3) Documentation of membership in an oil spill response
organization that ensures the owner's or operator's access to the
necessary personnel or equipment within the shortest practicable time.
EPA means the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Liquid means a material that has a vertical flow of over two inches
(50 mm) within a three-minute period, or a material having one gram or
more liquid separation, when determined in accordance with the
procedures specified in ASTM D 4359-84, ``Standard Test Method for
Determining Whether a Material is a Liquid or a Solid,'' 1990 edition,
which is incorporated by reference.
Note: This incorporation by reference has been approved by the
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)
and 1 CFR part 51. A copy may be obtained from the American Society
for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Copies may be inspected at the Dockets Unit, Room 8421, DOT
headquarters building, 400 7th St. SW, Washington, DC 20590 or at
the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol St. NW, Room
700, Washington, DC.
Maximum extent practicable means the limits of available technology
and the practical and technical limits on an owner or operator of an
onshore facility in planning the response resources required to provide
the on-water recovery capability and the shoreline protection and
cleanup capability to conduct response activities for a worst-case
discharge of oil in adverse weather.
Non-petroleum oil means any animal fat, vegetable oil or other non-
petroleum oil.
Oil means oil of any kind or in any form, including, but not
limited to, petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with
wastes other than dredged spoil.
Note: This definition does not include hazardous substances (see
40 CFR part 116).
Other non-petroleum oil means a non-petroleum oil of any kind that
is not an animal fat or vegetable oil.
Packaging means a receptacle and any other components or materials
necessary for the receptacle to perform its containment function in
conformance with the packaging requirements of this part. A
compartmented tank is a single packaging.
Person means an individual, firm, corporation, partnership,
association, State, municipality, commission, or political subdivision
of a State, or any interstate body, as well as a department, agency, or
instrumentality of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the
Federal Government.
Petroleum oil means any oil extracted or derived from geological
hydrocarbon deposits, including fractions thereof.
Qualified individual means an individual familiar with the response
plan, trained in his or her responsibilities in implementing the plan,
and authorized, on behalf of the owner or operator, to initiate all
response activities identified in the plan, to enter into response-
related contracts and obligate funds for such contracts, and to act as
a liaison with the on-scene coordinator and other responsible
officials. The qualified individual must be available at all times the
owner or operator is engaged in transportation subject to part 130
(alone or in conjunction with an equally qualified alternate), must be
fluent in English, and must have in his or her possession documentation
of the required authority.
Transports or Transportation means any movement of oil by highway
or rail, and any loading, unloading, or storage incidental thereto.
Vegetable oil means a non-petroleum oil or fat derived from plant
seeds, nuts, kernels or fruits, not specifically identified elsewhere
in this part.
Worst-case discharge means ``the largest foreseeable discharge in
adverse weather conditions,'' as defined at 33 U.S.C. 1321(a)(24). The
largest foreseeable discharge from a motor vehicle or rail car is the
capacity of the cargo container. The term ``maximum potential
discharge,'' used in Sec. 130.31(a), is synonymous with ``worst-case
discharge.''
Sec. 130.11 Communication requirements.
(a) No person may offer oil subject to this part for transportation
unless that person provides the person accepting the oil for
transportation a document indicating the shipment contains oil.
(b) No person may transport oil subject to this part unless a
readily available document indicating that the shipment contains oil is
in the possession of the transport vehicle operator during
transportation.
(c) A material subject to the requirements of this part need not be
specifically identified as oil when the shipment document accurately
describes the material as: aviation fuel, diesel fuel, fuel oil,
gasoline, jet fuel, kerosene, motor fuel, or petroleum.
Sec. 130.21 Packaging requirements.
Each packaging used for the transportation of oil subject to this
part must be designed, constructed, maintained, closed, and loaded so
that, under conditions normally incident to transportation, there will
be no release of oil to the environment.
Sec. 130.31 Response plans.
(a) After September 30, 1993, no person may transport oil subject
to this part unless that person has a current basic written plan that:
(1) Sets forth the manner of response to discharges that may occur
during transportation;
(2) Takes into account the maximum potential discharge of the
contents from the packaging;
(3) Identifies private personnel and equipment available to respond
to a discharge;
(4) Identifies the appropriate persons and agencies (including
their telephone numbers) to be contacted in regard to such a discharge
and its handling, including the National Response Center; and
(5) For each motor carrier, is retained on file at that person's
principal place of business and at each location where dispatching of
motor vehicles occurs; and for each railroad, is retained on file at
that person's principal place of business and at the dispatcher's
office.
(b) After February 18, 1993, no person may transport an oil subject
to this part in a quantity greater than 1,000 barrels (42,000 gallons)
unless that person has a current comprehensive written plan that:
(1) Conforms with all requirements specified in paragraph (a) of
this section;
(2) Is consistent with the requirements of the National Contingency
Plan (40 CFR part 300) and Area Contingency Plans;
(3) Identifies the qualified individual having full authority to
implement removal actions, and requires immediate communications
between that individual and the appropriate Federal official and the
persons providing spill response personnel and equipment;
(4) Identifies, and ensures by contract or other means the
availability of, private personnel (including address and phone
number), and the equipment necessary to remove, to the maximum extent
practicable, a worst case discharge (including a discharge resulting
from fire or explosion) and to mitigate or prevent a substantial threat
of such a discharge;
(5) Describes the training, equipment testing, periodic unannounced
drills, and response actions of facility personnel, to be carried out
under the plan to ensure the safety of the facility
[[Page 30543]]
and to mitigate or prevent the discharge, or the substantial threat of
such a discharge; and
(6) Is submitted, and resubmitted in the event of any significant
change, to the Federal Railroad Administrator (for tank cars), or to
the Federal Highway Administrator (for cargo tanks) at 400 Seventh
Street SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2137-0591)
Sec. 130.33 Response plan implementation.
If, during transportation of oil subject to this part, a discharge
occurs-- into or on the navigable waters of the United States; on the
adjoining shorelines to the navigable waters; or that may affect
natural resources belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive
management authority of, the United States--the person transporting the
oil shall implement the plan required by Sec. 130.31, in a manner
consistent with the National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR part 300, or as
otherwise directed by the Federal on-scene coordinator.
Issued in Washington, DC on June 3, 1996, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.
D.K. Sharma,
Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration .
[FR Doc. 96-14611 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14084 Training and Qualification Requirements for Check Airmen and Flight Instructors
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30734-30746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14084]
[[Page 30733]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Parts 121 and 135
Check Airmen and Flight Instructors, Training and Qualification
Requirements; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 30734]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 121 and 135
[Docket No. 28471; Amendment No. 121-257, 135-64]
RIN 2120-AF08
Training and Qualification Requirements for Check Airmen and
Flight Instructors
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; opportunity for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Some experienced pilots who would otherwise qualify as flight
instructors or check airmen but who are not medically eligible to hold
the requisite medical certificates, cannot perform flight instructor or
check airmen functions even in simulators. This rule establishes
separate requirements for check airmen who check only in flight
simulators and flight instructors who instruct only in flight
simulators. To ensure an equivalent level of safety, the affected check
airmen and flight instructors must accomplish the following: Recency of
experience requirements; completion of an approved line observation
program within each 12-month period; and required training, including
recurrent ground and flight training. Additionally, this rule allows
check airman and flight instructors to obtain all of their flight
training in simulators, as opposed to the current scheme in which
initial and transition flight training must include an in-flight
element.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective June 17, 1996. See below
in the ``Modifications'' section for the justification for making this
rule effective on June 17, 1996 and for a discussion about 9-month
compliance dates for two new requirements. Affected parties do not have
to comply with the information collection requirements in
Secs. 121.411(d), 121.412(d), 135.337 (d), and 135.338(d) until the
Federal Aviation Administration publishes in the Federal Register the
control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OBM) to
these information collection requirements. Publication of the control
number notifies the public that OMB has approved these information
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tom Toula, Air Carrier Training Branch, (AFS-210), Flight Standards
Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20519, Telephone (202) 267-3718.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Final Rules
Any person may obtain a copy of this final rule by submitting a
request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking,
ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by
calling (202) 267-9677. Communications must identify the notice number
of this final rule.
Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future
rules should request from the above office a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A which describes the application procedure.
Background
The requirements for training, checking, and qualification of check
airmen and flight instructors who perform training and checking for
certificate holders operating under Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations parts 121 and 135 appear in Secs. 121.411 and 135.337
(check airman and flight instructor qualification) and Secs. 121.413
and 135.339 (check airman and flight instructor training and checking).
When parts 121 and 135 were implemented, the primary means of
training was in an aircraft. Therefore there was a requirement for
check airmen and flight instructors to hold appropriate medical
certificates. Even after flight simulators came into use in the late
1970s, check airmen and flight instructors were likely to use both
aircraft and flight simulators. Despite significant changes in methods
of training, particularly an increased use of flight simulation in
training, the sections of parts 121 and 135 mentioned above have not
been significantly revised in over 20 years. These sections still focus
primarily on check airmen and flight instructors who perform their
functions in airplanes.
Today, flight simulators and flight training devices are so
sophisticated that they are used to conduct most training and checking
with significant benefits to safety. Training and checking in
simulators and flight training devices have distinct advantages over
training and checking in flight. Flight simulators provide a safe
flight training environment, more comprehensive training, and may
reduce the number of training and in-service accidents by allowing
training for emergency situations that cannot be safely conducted in
flight. The use of flight simulators and flight training devices in
lieu of aircraft has resulted in a reduction in air traffic congestion,
energy use, noise, air pollution and training costs.
Some experienced pilots who would otherwise qualify as flight
instructors or check airmen but who are not medically eligible to hold
the requisite medical certificates, cannot perform check airmen
functions or many flight instructor functions even in simulators. Thus
the regulations do not establish separate categories of requirements
for check airmen who check only in flight simulators or for flight
instructors who instruct only in flight simulators. A number of highly
experienced airmen who might serve as flight instructors or check
airmen, including former military pilots, former air carrier pilots,
and furloughed pilots, as well as other experienced pilots, currently
are unable to perform those training and checking functions because
they are unable to hold an airman medical certificate.
This rule allows experienced check airmen and flight instructors
who are not able to hold a current medical certificate to check or
instruct in flight simulators and flight training devices. Under this
rule, affected check airmen and flight instructors must meet similar
requirements that a pilot flying the line is required to meet, such as
initial training, proficiency checks, and competency checks and could
use flight simulators to meet these similar requirements. This rule
also addresses check airmen in aircraft, check airmen in flight
simulators or flight training devices, flight instructors in aircraft,
and flight instructors in flight simulators or flight training devices.
The Air Carrier Training Working Group of the Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee (ARAC) recommended that the FAA amend its
regulations so that airmen who were not eligible to hold medical
certificates would nonetheless be eligible to instruct or check pilots
and other airmen in simulators. On July 16, 1992, ARAC forwarded draft
rule language for the FAA to review. The FAA used ARAC's draft as the
basis for developing this rule.
Discussion of the Rule
This rule revises the following sections of parts 121 and 135:
Secs. 121.411, 121.413, 135.337, and 135.339; it adds the following
four new sections: Secs. 121.412, 121.414, 135.338, and 135.340.
The most significant changes between the current and new rules are
as follows:
(1) The categories of check airman (simulator) and flight
instructor
[[Page 30735]]
(simulator) are defined with separate requirements for each.
(2) The following requirements for flights instructors and check
airmen who only perform check airmen and instructor functions in flight
simulators and flight training devices are deleted:
The requirement to hold at least a Class III medical
certificate, in current Sec. 121.411(a)(6).
The requirement to hold a Class I, II, or III medical
certificate, in current Sec. 135.337(a).
(3) A flight instructor (simulator) or check airman (simulator) is
required to meet recency of experience requirements, in the 12-month
period preceding the performance of flight instruction or check airman
functions, by flying two flight segments as a required crewmember for
the type aircraft involved, if medically qualified and certificated, or
by completing an approved line-observation program.
(4) Training requirements for check airmen and flight instructors
who serve in training programs under parts 121 and 135 are in
Secs. 121.413, 121.414, 135.339, and 135.340. This rule changes these
requirements in the following ways:
A new requirement is imposed for check airmen and flight
instructors in that they must satisfactorily complete, within the
preceding 24 calendar months, an observation check of their check
airman or flight instructor functions. This check may be accomplished
in a flight simulator or in a flight training device as appropriate.
Flight instructors are required to have much of the same
ground training requirements as check airmen. As a practical matter,
ground training for flight instructors and check airmen are the same;
however, the current rules are not specific in this area. This change
ensures that flight instructors and check airmen receive the same
ground training.
Currently, initial and transitional flight training for
check airmen and flight instructors who perform their functions in-
flight requires in-flight training and practice. This rule allows this
training to take place in simulators or in flight training devices.
These changes allow certain experienced pilots who are unable to
meet current medical certificate requirements to be able to check and
instruct, but only in flight simulator and flight training devices. To
allow this flexibility while maintaining safety, this rule requires
flight instructors (simulator) and check airmen (simulator) to meet
recency of experience requirements, take observation checks of their
check airmen/instructor abilities once every 2 years, complete the
required recurrent training necessary to serve as a pilot-in-command
under parts 121 and 135 or a flight engineer or flight navigator under
part 121, and complete required proficiency or competency checks. A
detailed section-by-section description of the rule follows.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 121.411 Qualifications: Check airmen (airplane) and check
airmen (simulator).
Current Sec. 121.411(a)(1) requires that a flight instructor or
check airman who serves in a training program under part 121, for the
particular airplane type involved, hold the airman certificates and
ratings that must be held in order to serve as a pilot in command
(PIC), a flight engineer, or a flight navigator, as appropriate, in
operations under part 121. Current Sec. 121.411 (a)(6) requires that a
check airman or flight instructor who serves in a training program
under part 121 must hold at least a Class III medical certificate.
Under current Sec. 121.411(b)(1) a simulator instructor, instructing
for a course of training in an airplace simulator as provided in
Sec. 121.409(b), must hold an airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate
but need not hold an airman medical certificate if only giving
proficiency checks as specified in Sec. 121.441 and Sec. 121.409(b).
Under the current rules, if a simulator instructor is providing
instruction for anything other than a proficiency check (e.g., upgrade
training), then he or she must have a medical certificate. (See current
Sec. 121.411(a).)
Section 121.411 is revised to change the applicability from check
airmen and flight instructors to check airmen (airplane) and check
airmen (simulator). Flight instructors are covered under new
Sec. 121.412. New paragraph (a) of Sec. 121.411 states that a check
airman (airplane) is a person who is qualified and permitted to conduct
flight checks and instruction in an airplane, in a flight simulator, or
in a flight training device for a particular type airplane. A check
airman (simulator) is a person who is qualified to conduct flight
checks only in a flight simulator or in a flight training device for a
particular type aircraft.
New paragraph (b) contains the eligibility requirements to serve as
a check airman (airplane). With some editorial revisions and an
additional requirement to satisfy the recency of experience requirement
of Sec. 121.439, the eligibility requirements remain the same as the
current requirements. The recency provision is added to ensure
equivalent recency of experience for those check airmen who may not be
flying line operations.
New paragraph (c) of Sec. 121.411 establishes the eligibility
requirements for check airmen (simulator). These requirements are the
same as those for check airmen (airplane) in paragraph (b) with two
exceptions. There is no requirement to hold a Class III medical
certificate and the recency of experience requirements of
Sec. 121.411(b)(6) are not required of part 121 check airmen
(simulator). Check airmen (simulator) instead are allowed to meet
proposed recency of experience requirements in new paragraph (f),
discussed later in this section. Because check airmen (airplane) are
able to perform their functions in an airplane as a required flightcrew
member, they may meet recency of experience requirements either in an
airplane or in a qualified simulator. In addition, current
Sec. 121.411(c), which grants training relief to check airmen, flight
instructors, and simulator instructors who were designated before
December 22, 1969, is deleted since the FAA believes that this
provision is obsolete.
New paragraph (d) is added to clarify that the completion of the
requirements of (b)(2),(3), and (4) or (c)(2),(3), and (4), whichever
is applicable, must be entered into the operator's records for each
individual check airman.
New paragraph (e) is added to restate the portion of current
Sec. 121.411(a)(6) allowing airmen who have passed their 60th birthday
or who do not hold a medical certificate to perform check airmen
functions, but, under this paragraph, these airmen may not serve as
crewmembers under part 121 operations.
New paragraph (f) is added to offer an alternate method for
maintaining recency of experience requirements for check airmen
(simulator). Under this rule, check airmen (simulator) must, within the
12-month period preceding the performance of check airman duties,
either fly two segments as a required crewmember for the type airplane
or satisfactorily complete an approved line-observation program.
New paragraph (g) is added to provide that the recency of
experience requirements of paragraph (f) may be completed in the
calendar month before or the calendar month after the month in which it
is due.
Section 121.412 Qualifications: Flight instructors (airplane) and
flight instructors (simulator).
The requirements for this section are virtually identical to those
in Sec. 121.411
[[Page 30736]]
for check airmen. Additionally, this section specifies that an
individual who does not hold a medical certificate may not function as
a flight instructor in an airplane.
Section 121.413 Initial and transition training and checking
requirements: Check airmen (airplane) and check airmen (simulator)
Paragraph (a)(1) maintains the current requirement that, in order
to serve as a check airman, a person must have completed initial or
transition check airman training. Additionally, paragraph (a)(2)
requires an observation check of check airman functions within the
preceding 24 calendar months. The observation check may be done in part
or in full in an airplane, in a flight simulator, or in a flight
training device as appropriate. An FAA inspector or an aircrew
designated examiner employed by the operator may administer this
observation check. The FAA believes that the observation check
requirement better ensures that check airmen maintain their
qualifications and their abilities to perform all other duties as
appropriate for check airmen.
In paragraph (b) the observation check requirement of paragraph
(a)(2) could be accomplished in the month before or the month after the
month in which it is due.
Paragraph (c) of this section covers initial ground training
requirements for check airmen. Most of the requirements are in current
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of Sec. 121.413; however, some
editorial revisions have been made.
Paragraph (d) covers transition ground training for check airmen.
This paragraph separates transition ground training requirements from
initial ground training requirements, but imposes no new requirements
since transition and ground training are currently required in
Sec. 121.413 (a)(6).
Paragraph (e) is added to cover initial and transition flight
training for pilot check airmen (airplane), flight engineer check
airmen (airplane), and flight navigator check airmen (airplane).
Paragraph (e) contains requirements equivalent to those contained in
current Sec. 121.413(c) and (d), but places greater emphasis on the
safety issues required during checking that takes place under actual
flight. Additionally, it broadens the scope of current Sec. 121.413(c)
to include flight engineers (airplane) and flight navigators
(airplane). The FAA believes that the flight engineer (airplane) and
flight navigator (airplane) safety functions are as important to the
safe conduct of a flight as that of the check airman (airplane).
Paragraph (f) is added to allow all the flight training provisions
of paragraph (e) to be accomplished in full or in part in flight, in
flight simulators, or flight training devices as appropriate. Because
of technological advances in simulation, the FAA believes that the
requirements in current Sec. 121.413(c)(1) may be conducted in a
simulator. Current paragraph (c) allows the initial and transition
flight training in safety measures for emergency situations (current
paragraph (c)(2)) and the results of improper or untimely safety
measures (current paragraph (c)(3)) to be accomplished in an approved
flight simulator, but requires the training requirements of current
paragraph (c)(1) to be conducted in flight. In the new rule, the
requirements of current paragraph (c)(1) are to be codified in
Sec. 121.413(e)(3); however, under new paragraph (f), those
requirements need not be accomplished in flight. Those requirements can
be accomplished in flight, in a flight simulator, or in a flight
training device. The FAA believes that this is appropriate because of
the proven effectiveness of flight simulator training. Flight training
devices can be used to fulfill the training requirements for the same
reasons.
Paragraph (g) is added to establish initial and transition flight
training for check airmen (simulator). The requirements include
training and practice in the required normal, abnormal, and emergency
procedures and training in the operation of flight simulators or flight
training devices. Under this paragraph, the training may be conducted
in flight training devices or flight simulators as appropriate. The
requirements are necessary to establish flight training requirements
specifically for check airmen (simulator) who are qualified to conduct
flight checks or instruction only in a flight simulator or in a flight
training device.
Section 121.414 Initial and transition training and checking
requirements: Flight instructors (airplane) and flight instructors
(simulator)
The requirements for this section are identical to the provisions
in Sec. 121.413 except that the terms and references apply to flight
instructors. The required observation check is an observation check of
instructor functions, and includes the current requirement for training
in teaching methods and procedures except for the holders of a flight
instructor certificate.
Section 135.337 Qualifications: Check airmen (aircraft) and check
airmen (simulator)
Section 135.337(a)(1) currently requires that a flight instructor
or check airman serving in a training program under part 135, for the
particular aircraft type involved, must hold the airman certificate and
ratings that must be held to serve as a PIC in operations under part
135. Section 135.337(a)(5) currently requires that such a flight
instructor or check airman hold a Class I or Class II medical
certificate required to serve as a PIC in operations under part 135.
Under current Sec. 135.337(a)(7), a check airman who serves in an
aircraft simulator only must hold a Class III medical certificate.
Section 135.337(b) currently requires that a person who serves as a
simulator instructor for a course of training in an aircraft simulator
must hold at least a commercial pilot certificate.
This rule changes the applicability of this section from check
airmen and flight instructors to check airmen (aircraft) and check
airmen (simulator). Flight instructors are covered under new
Sec. 135.338. Paragraph (a) of Sec. 135.337 states that a check airman
(aircraft) is a person who is qualified and permitted to conduct flight
checks and instruction in an airplane, in a flight simulator, or in a
flight training device for a particular type, class, or category
aircraft. A check airman (simulator) is qualified to conduct flight
checks only in a flight simulator or in a flight training device for a
particular type, class, or category aircraft.
Paragraph (b) contains the eligibility requirements to serve as a
check airman (aircraft). With some editorial revisions and an
additional requirement to satisfy the recency of experience requirement
of Sec. 135.247, the eligibility requirements remain the same as
current requirements. The recency provision is added to ensure
equivalent recency of experience for those check airmen who may not be
flying line operations.
Paragraph (c) of Sec. 135.337 is added to establish the eligibility
requirements for check airmen (simulator). These requirements are the
same as those for check airmen (aircraft) paragraph (b) with two
exceptions. There is no requirement to hold a medical certificate and
the recency of experience requirements of new Sec. 135.337(b)(3) are
not required of part 135 check airmen (simulator). Check airmen
(simulator) instead are allowed to meet the recency of experience
requirements of paragraph (f), discussed later in this section.
Paragraph (d) is added to clarify that the completion of the
requirements of
[[Page 30737]]
(b)(2), (3), and (4) or (c)(2), (3), (4), whichever is applicable, must
be entered into the individual check airmen's training record.
Paragraph (e) is added to clarify that an airmen who does not hold
a medical certificate may perform check airmen functions, but may not
serve as a crewmember under part 135 operations.
Paragraph (f) is added to offer an alternate method for maintaining
recency of experience requirements for check airmen (simulator). Check
airmen (simulator) must, within the 12-month period preceding the
performance of check airman duties, either fly two segments as a
required crewmember for the type, class, or category aircraft or
satisfactorily complete an approved line-observation program.
Paragraph (g) is added to provide that the recency of experience
requirements of paragraph (f) may be completed in the calendar month
before or in the calendar month after the month in which it is due.
Section 135.338 Qualifications: Flight instructors (aircraft) and
flight instructors (simulator)
The requirements for this section are virtually identical to those
in Sec. 135.337 for check airmen. Additionally, this section clarifies
that an individual who does not hold a medical certificate may not
function as a flight instructor in an aircraft.
Section 135.339 Initial and transition training and checking
requirements: Check airmen (aircraft) and check airmen (simulator)
Paragraph (a)(1) continues the current requirement that, in order
to serve as a check airman, a person must have completed initial or
transition check airman training. Additionally, paragraph (a)(2)
requires an observation check of check airman functions within the
preceding 24 calendar months. The observation check may be done in part
or in full in an airplane, flight simulator, or flight training device
as appropriate. An FAA inspector or an aircrew designated examiner
employed by the operator may administer the observation check. The FAA
believes that the observation check requirement better ensures that
check airmen maintain their qualifications and their abilities to
perform all other duties as appropriate for check airmen.
In paragraph (b) the observation check requirement of paragraph
(a)(2) may be accomplished in the month before or the month after the
month in which it is due.
Paragraph (c) of this section covers initial ground training
requirements for check airmen. Most of the requirements are in current
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of Sec. 135.339. Some editorial
revisions are made in this rule.
Paragraph (d) is added to cover transition ground training for
check airmen. This paragraph separates transition ground training
requirements from initial ground training requirements, but imposes no
new requirements since transition and ground training are currently
required in Sec. 135.339(a)(6).
Paragraph (e) is added to cover initial and transition flight
training for pilot check airmen (aircraft). Paragraph (e) contains
requirements equivalent to those contained in current Sec. 135.339(c),
but places greater emphasis on the safety issues required during
checking that would take place under actual flight.
Paragraph (f) is added to allow all the flight training provisions
of paragraph (e) to be accomplished in full or in part in flight, in
flight simulators, or in flight training devices as appropriate. This
makes the requirements in current Sec. 135.339(c)(1) less burdensome.
Current Sec. 135.339(c) allows the initial and transition flight
training in safety measures for emergency situations (current paragraph
(c)(2)) and the results of improper or untimely safety measures
(current paragraph (c)(3)) to be accomplished in an approved flight
simulator, but requires the training requirements of (c)(1) to be
conducted in flight. In the new rule, the requirements of current
(c)(1) are to be codified in Sec. 135.339(e); however, under new
paragraph (f), those requirements need not be accomplished in flight.
Those requirements can be accomplished in flight, in a flight
simulator, or in a flight training device. The FAA believes that this
is appropriate because of the proven effectiveness of flight simulator
training. Flight training devices also can be used to fulfill the
training requirements for the same reasons.
Paragraph (g) is added to establish initial and transition flight
training for check airmen (simulator). The requirements include
training and practice in the required normal, abnormal, and emergency
procedures and training in the operation of flight simulators or flight
training devices. Under this paragraph, the training may be conducted
in flight training devices or flight simulators as appropriate. The
requirements are necessary to establish flight training requirements
specifically for check airmen (simulator) who are qualified to conduct
flight checks or instruction only in a flight simulator or in a flight
training device.
Section 135.340 Initial and transition training and checking
requirements: Flight instructors (aircraft) and flight instructors
(simulator).
The requirements of this section are identical to the provisions of
Sec. 135.339 except that the terms and references apply to flight
instructors. The required observation check is an observation check of
instructor functions, and paragraph (c)(7) is added to include the
current requirement for training in teaching methods and procedures
except for the holders of a flight instructor certificate.
Discussion of Comments
On February 22, 1996, the FAA published notice proposing to allow
experienced check airmen and flight instructors who are not able to
hold a current medical certificate to check or instruct in flight
simulators and flight training devices (61 FR 6903). Eleven commenters
responded to the proposal. Commenters from FlightSafety International,
the National Air Transportation Association, Executive Air Fleet, Inc.,
Million Air, and McDonnell Douglas support this final rule. Commenters
from Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., (PHI), the Allied Pilots Association
(APA), the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), the Air Transport
Association (ATA), Federal Express (FedEx), and Kitty Hawk AirCargo,
Inc., (KHAI) made several recommendations, discussed and responded to
below.
PHI
PHI states that it generally supports the proposal to change
Sec. 135.339(a)(2) to require an observation check of check airmen
functions within the preceding 24 calendar months. However, it requests
that a statement be added to the rule language that would further
clarify who may conduct this observation check other than an FAA
inspector. It suggests that this check should be allowed to be
conducted by other ``designated check airmen.''
PHI also generally supports proposed Sec. 135.340 which requires
flight instructors to have the same training as check airmen. It
suggests adding language to the rule, however, to enable operators to
designate limited instructor capability for the purpose of training
specific modules, for example, navigation equipment, air data
computers, or other specialized equipment or operations.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees, in part, with PHI's comment regarding
clarification of who, other than an FAA inspector, may conduct an
observation check. To clarify this matter, the FAA
[[Page 30738]]
has changed ``aircrew designated examiner'' to ``aircrew designated
examiner employed by the operator'' under Secs. 121.413(a)(2) and
135.339(a)(2). This clarifies that such examiners are associated with a
particular operator. The FAA does not recognize the term ``designated
check airmen'' as suggested by the commenter. The FAA does not agree
that check airmen should conduct observation checks of other check
airmen. The FAA has determined that such authority should be exercised
only by FAA inspectors or an FAA designated aircrew examiner employed
by the operator.
In reference to PHI's comment regarding proposed Sec. 135.340, this
rule was not intended to create limited categories of instructors. To
create categories of instructors with limited authority is beyond the
scope of the NPRM.
APA
APA's comments are described as follows:
The proposal does not address any experience requirements other
than the requirement to hold the appropriate airmen certificates and
ratings that are required to serve as PIC for the type aircraft
involved. Check airmen under the current regulations are usually
operationally experienced line pilots who bring extensive line flying
background to the training environment. Under the proposed rule, any
individual with the proposed airmen certificates and ratings, with some
classroom and simulator training, could be a designated check airman.
In today's cost conscious training environment, with extensive use of
single visit training cycles, the need to use operationally experienced
individuals as check airmen is essential to maintain an effective
training environment and operational evaluation standard. Operational
experience requirements should include a defined number of PIC hours in
the type aircraft and regulatory environment (i.e., part 121 or 135)
involved and/or prior qualification as a former military, air carrier,
or furloughed pilot.
FAA Response: It is possible that, under this rule, any individual
with airmen certificates and ratings, with the appropriate classroom
and simulator training, could become a designated check airman. Check
airmen (simulator), however, must accomplish the following: Complete
the operator's course of instruction (initial, transition, or upgrade,
as appropriate) to include the proficiency check using company
procedures; regularly participate in an approved line-observation
program; maintain recency of experience in the simulator; and
accomplish the normal recurring training, line-oriented flight training
program, and periodic proficiency checks required of a line-qualified
PIC. These requirements are similar to those that line-qualified PIC's
must meet. The FAA has determined that certain simulators (Levels C and
D) are so advanced that experience gained using these simulators,
coupled with the line observation (e.g. Sec. 121.411(f)), recurrency
requirements (e.g., Sec. 121.411(c)(2)) and (3)), and observation check
(e.g., Sec. 121.413(a)(2)) are adequate substitutes for actual flight
experience in order to be check airmen. Further, the airman checked by
the check airman (simulator) must accomplish operational experience
(e.g., Sec. 121.434 (c)(1)(i) and (ii)) under the supervision of a
fully qualified PIC check airman (airplane) occupying a pilot station.
Thus, even a check airman (simulator's) approval of an airman is
indirectly reviewed by a check airman (airplane) during the acquisition
of operating experience.
APA also comments that, while the preamble indicates that the
recency of experience requirements for check airmen (simulator) and
flight instructor (simulator) can be met by flying two flight segments
as a required crewmember for the aircraft type involved, the proposed
rule language of Secs. 121.411(f) and 135.337(f) states that the
recency of experience flying requirements of two flight segments can be
accomplished in a simulator. APA believes that recency of experience
requirements can be met only by operational line flying. The
requirements for these flights should include participation/observation
in all aspects of the flight, including flight planning, preflight, and
post flight functions. ALPA echoed APA's comment regarding
Sec. 121.411(f) and FedEx commented that, if proposed Secs. 121.411(f)
and 121.412(f) are adopted, then similar requirements in appendix H
should be deleted.
FAA Response: The FAA has revised the preamble and also proposed
Secs. 121.411(f), 121.412(f), 135.337(f), and 135.338(f) to clarify
that recency of experience requirements can be met either in an
airplane or in a simulator (that is, by accomplishing two flight
segments or an approved line-observation program). The FAA also has
revised all of these sections to clarify the time period in which these
flight segments or line-observation programs must be accomplished. For
the reasons stated in the FAA's response to APA's comment above, all
experience requirements, both initial and recurrent, can be met in an
appropriately qualified simulator.
APA also proposes that the new requirement for check airmen and
flight instructors to complete an observation check of their
performance functions within the preceding 24 months should be
increased in frequency to within the preceding 12 months. Flightcrew
members are being evaluated at a minimum of at least every 12 months.
ALPA echoes APA on this matter. In line with the ``one level of
safety'' concept, according to APA, the rule ultimately adopted should
be identical for both part 121 and part 135 operators.
FAA Response: The evaluation timeframe for check airmen and flight
instructors will not be less than that required for the individuals
they will check or instruct. Check airmen and flight instructors
continue to be required to complete appropriate proficiency and
competency checks at least once every 12 months. The new requirement
that check airmen and flight instructors be observed in the performance
of their functions will serve to increase the quality assurance of
check airmen and flight instructors.
ALPA
As discussed above, ALPA agrees with APA that the observation
checks proposed under Secs. 121.413(a)(2) and 121.414(a)(2) should be
conducted within 12, rather than 24, months. ALPA and APA further agree
that 121.411(f), as proposed, would require the accomplishment of
flying or line observation in a flight simulator. The FAA has responded
to these comments above under the discussion of APA's comments.
In addition, ALPA feels that line observation should be required in
the airplane on a more frequent basis than proposed. According to ALPA,
the requirement in Secs. 121.411(f) and 121.412(f) for 12 months should
be changed to 3 months. Lastly, ALPA indicates that its comments
regarding the proposed part 121 sections are also valid for the
proposed part 135 sections.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees that any individual will maintain
greater line familiarity with more frequent line observations. Current
guidance indicates that two line observations per year are adequate to
maintain line familiarity. There is no evidence that safety has been
compromised using this current guidance. The FAA believes that annual
proficiency or competency checks, and the new 24-month observation
requirement coupled with the new annual line observation requirement,
exceed the current
[[Page 30739]]
guidance of two line observations per year.
The FAA acknowledges that ALPA's comments regarding pertinent part
121 sections are intended to apply to parallel part 135 sections and
has responded appropriately. As discussed above under APA's comments,
the FAA has revised proposed Secs. 121.411(f) and 121.412(f) to
parallel proposed Sec. 135.337(f).
ATA
ATA suggests that the preamble language of proposed
Sec. 121.411(b)(6) be made more clear. As drafted, it is unclear to ATA
whether the FAA intends that the check airmen must complete the three
takeoffs and landings in an airplane or whether a simulator may be used
to satisfy this requirement as allowed under existing Sec. 121.439.
FAA Response: Because check airmen (airplane) are able to perform
their functions in an airplane as a required flightcrew member, they
may meet recency of experience requirements either in an airplane or in
a qualified simulator. However, if a check airman (airplane) is a
required flightcrew member, actual in-flight recency experience is
required pursuant to Sec. 121.439(c).
ATA also believes that proposed Sec. 121.412(c)(1) contains a
significant change because it requires simulator-only instructors to
hold an ATP with a type rating in the airplane in which they will
instruct. This change is not explained in the preamble. In a second set
of comments which were filed after the comment period closed, ATA
stated that many of its member airlines employ hundreds of ``simulator
only'' instructors who do not hold type ratings on the airplane on
which they instruct. ATA feels that the impact of this rule would be
``severe'' on its members. Therefore, ATA recommends the following:
--Allow current ``simulator only'' instructors to continue instructing
without a type rating but require a type rating when an instructor is
trained on another airplane type;
--Allow sufficient time (i.e., 3 years) for an operator's instructor to
obtain a type rating and make it clear that a medical certificate is
not required to take a flight test in a simulator; or
--Allow a ``simulator only'' instructor to be issued a type rating upon
successful completion of the next recurrent training so that additional
training would not have to be provided in preparation for a type rating
flight test.
FAA Response: Current Sec. 121.411(b) references simulator
instructors. Simulator instructors were individuals who could instruct
flightcrew members maintaining airplane qualification but who were
unable to instruct those flightcrew members training under an initial,
upgrade, or transition training program. These simulator instructors
were required to hold an ATP but not a type rating in the type airplane
in which they instructed so long as they were only giving proficiency
instruction. ATA states that simulator instructors holding an ATP but
not a type rating for the airplane in which they instructed could not
obtain the required type rating in a level C simulator.
Under this final rule, simulator instructors are included under the
category of flight instructors (simulator). Flight instructors
(simulator) are required to obtain a type rating for the airplane in
which they instruct. Any individual may use an approved simulator to
satisfy the practical test requirements for an ATP and associated type
rating in accordance with current Sec. 61.157(e). Those individuals who
hold an ATP but not the type rating in the airplane in which they
provide proficiency instruction will have 9 months to come into
compliance with the new requirement by obtaining the aircraft type
rating. (See new 121.412(c)(1)). The new part 121 rule recodifies the
existing part 121 requirement that if a simulator instructor is
providing initial training, upgrade training, or transitional training,
then he or she must have a type rating for the aircraft. Because this
is a recodification of the part 121 existing requirement, ongoing
compliance is required. In other words, any part 121 flight instructor
(simulator) who provides initial, upgrade, or transitional training
must continue to have the appropriate type rating for the aircraft
involved. In contrast, current Sec. 135.337(b) does not require that a
simulator instructor have the appropriate type ratings. Therefore new
Sec. 135.338(c)(1) allows flight instructors (simulator) 9 months to
come into compliance with the new type rating requirements.
Despite ATA's assertion, in its untimely comment, that it would
take two of its members several years to type rate all of their
``simulator only'' instructors, ATA did not provide any data to support
its claim (e.g., number of persons affected, availability of
simulators, etc.) Furthermore, ATA states in its April 19 comment that
these instructors have completed aircraft qualification courses and
recurrent training. Thus, the time required for these individuals to
obtain type ratings will be minimal.
FedEx and ATA
FedEx and ATA recommend deleting current Sec. 121.411(a)(6) and
proposed Secs. 121.411(b)(5), 121.412(b)(5), 121.411(e) and 121.412(e).
According to these commenters, existing part 61 and Sec. 121.383
adequately address medical certificate and age requirements and the FAA
should merely reference these existing requirements in the preamble of
this final rule. Regarding Secs. 121.411(e) and 121.412(e), the KHAI
commenter agrees with ATA and FedEx that these sections should be
deleted due to redundancy with existing Sec. 121.383. ATA and FedEx
further request that the FAA make it clear that the requirement for a
Class III medical certificate in Sec. 61.39 does not apply if the
applicant for a type rating uses a flight simulator.
FAA response: The FAA concurs with ATA that proposed
Secs. 121.411(b)(5), 121.412(b)(5), 121.411(e) and 121.412(e) may echo
provisions contained elsewhere in the regulations; however, the intent
of these proposed sections is to clarify medical requirements for the
airplane and simulator categories of check airmen and flight
instructors.
The provisions of Sec. 61.39, which cover flight tests, do not
apply to this rulemaking. The medical requirement provision of
Sec. 61.39(a)(3) was adopted to ensure that applicants who would take
their flight tests in an aircraft hold appropriate medical
certificates. There is no requirement for applicants to hold a medical
certificate for practical tests conducted in a simulator. Section
61.157 provides for adding type ratings to existing ATP's. The addition
of a type rating is accomplished under Sec. 61.157 by a practical test
for which no medical certificate is required.
KHAI
KHAI's comments are described as follows:
The recordkeeping requirements of proposed Sec. 121.411(c) and (d),
requiring that records for a check airman be maintained as for any
other pilot, are redundant and not necessary unless the check airman is
not employed as a pilot for the certificate holder.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the commenter to the extent that
check airmen and flight instructors who are line qualified flightcrew
members for the operator need not duplicate the recordkeeping
requirements of Sec. 121.411. This final rule recognizes check airmen
and instructors who may not be line qualified and requires such
individuals to maintain similar training
[[Page 30740]]
records as those individuals who are line qualified.
Further, according to KHAI, the observation check requirement in
proposed Sec. 121.413(a)(2) is burdensome. Since it is now very
difficult to schedule an FAA inspector to conduct checks, KHAI believes
that this proposed observation check requirement will add an
unnecessary burden of additional tracking and scheduling and
accomplishes little in the way of verifying the competency of a check
airmen.
FAA Response: The FAA places importance on the role of check airmen
and flight instructors. The 24-month observation is a new requirement
and will serve to increase the quality assurance of check airmen and
flight instructors. This final rule permits qualified aircrew
designated examiners employed by the operator to conduct the
observation. The addition of aircrew designated examiners employed by
the operator to conduct the observation check should relieve any
unnecessary burden for tracking and scheduling.
The commenter from KHAI states that there is an apparent
discrepancy in the initial and transition training requirements for
flight instructors as proposed in Sec. 121.414 (c)(7) and for check
airmen as proposed in Sec. 121.413 (c)(6).
FAA Response: Generally, before an individual becomes a check
airman, those individuals are first qualified as flight instructors.
The training requirements for flight instructors are prerequisite to
the training requirements for check airmen.
KHAI comments that, unlike the new Sec. 121.434 regulation, this
regulation does not specifically address line check airmen.
FAA Response: This final rule addresses check airmen as a broad
category. Other specific categories of check airmen (i.e., line check
airmen, proficiency check airmen, etc.) also were not mentioned. It was
not the intent of this rule to address specific categories of check
airmen beyond check airmen (airplane) and check airmen (simulator).
Lastly, KHAI states that, in the future, more input is needed from
part 121 operators before this type of rule is issued, that comment
periods should be longer, and that a review of FAA Order 8400.10 should
be conducted.
FAA Response: As indicated in the preamble discussion above, the
FAA used draft rule language developed by the Air Carrier Training
Working Group of ARAC as the basis for developing this proposal. This
working group was comprised of many part 121 operators.
In allotting the 30-day comment period, the FAA was responding to
requests for relief from the aviation industry.
Because FAA Orders are guidance material and not regulatory, they
are reviewed and updated to coincide with regulatory requirements, when
warranted.
Modifications
The following modifications have been made to the final rule:
--``Aircrew designated examiner'' has been expanded to ``aircrew
designated examiner employed by the operator'' under proposed
Secs. 121.413(a)(2) and 135.339(a)(2), to further clarify who, other
than an FAA inspector, may conduct an observation check.
--Proposed Secs. 121.411(f), 121.412(f), 135.337(f), and 135.338(f)
have been revised to make them clear and parallel. These proposed
sections contain the qualification requirements for check airmen/
simulator and check airmen/airplane.
--Proposed paragraphs (f)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii) have been withdrawn
from the qualifications sections for flight instructors (simulator) and
check airmen (simulator)--Secs. 121.411, 121.412, 135.337, and 135.338.
The FAA has decided to maintain the existing regulatory scheme under
which operators can seek FAA approval for line observation programs.
See Advisory Circular 120-35 as amended.
--Proposed paragraphs (a)(2) of Secs. 121.413, 121.414, 135.339, and
135.340 (simulator) have been revised to allow operators until March
1997 (9 months after the publication date of this rule) to come into
compliance with the new requirement for operators to conduct
observation checks of check airmen and flight instructors once every 24
months.
--Proposed Sec. 121.412(c)(1) has been revised to give part 121
operators and flight instructors (simulator) who currently only provide
proficiency instruction, until March 1997 to obtain a type rating if
they do not already have one.
--Proposed Sec. 135.338(c)(1) has been revised to give part 135
operators and flight instructors (simulator) until March 1997 to obtain
a type rating for the type, class, or category of aircraft in which
they instruct if they do not already have one.
Although not in response to comments, the FAA has also added the
word ``pilot'' in front of ``flightcrew members'' under proposed
paragraphs (e) of Secs. 121.411 and 121.412. This clarification is
necessary because 121.383(c) (the so-called ``Age 60 rule'') only
applies to pilot flightcrew members.
With the above modifications being incorporated, this rule is
adopted as proposed.
The FAA is making this rule effective on the date of its
publication in the Federal Register pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sections
553(d)(1) and 553(d)(3). Because this new rule eliminates certain
medical certification requirements, it relieves a restriction that used
to exist and thus justifies an immediate change. (See 5 U.S.C. Section
553(d)(1)). Because much of the rest of these rules are merely a
recodification of long-standing rules, good cause exists for making
this recodification effective immediately. (See 5 U.S.C. Section 553
(d)(3)). Although these rules are effective immediately, the FAA is
allowing operators and other affected individuals 9 months to come into
compliance with two new requirements: the 24-month observation check
and the type rating requirements. (See earlier discussion.)
Paperwork Reduction Act
As stated in the NPRM, the paperwork burden associated with this
rule is negligible. The FAA estimated the average burden hour per
respondent at 15 seconds per individual every 2 years. As discussed
above under ``Effective Date,'' OMB is reviewing the information
collection requirements associated with this rule and will publish a
notice informing the public when these information requirements become
effective.
International Civil Aviation Organization and Joint Aviation
Regulations
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with ICAO
Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable.
The FAA is not aware of any differences that this rule presents, nor
were any differences indicated in any of the comments received.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs Federal agencies to
promulgate new regulations or modify existing regulations only if the
potential benefits to society outweigh the potential costs. Second, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the
economic impact of regulatory changes
[[Page 30741]]
on small entities. Finally, the Office of Management and Budget directs
agencies to assess the effects of regulatory changes on international
trade. In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this
rule is not ``a significant regulatory action'' as defined in the
Executive Order and the Department of Transportation Regulatory
Policies and Procedures. This rule will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities and will have no impact on
international trade. These analyses, available in the docket, are
summarized below.
Benefits and Costs
The requirements of this rule will not impose any additional cost
on air carriers or other training entities currently providing
simulator training. These additional requirements can be incorporated
into current industry practice.
In the past, the FAA has issued exemptions to air carriers and to
training entities (FlightSafety, Simuflite, etc.), which permit them to
use simulators to conduct training and checking for air carrier pilots.
However, the FAA imposed certain conditions and limitations in these
exemptions. The Agency required that the check airmen and instructors
of these entities hold the same airman certificates and ratings and
complete the same proficiency checks as required to serve as PIC in air
carrier operations. In addition, check airmen and flight instructors
that conduct Line-Oriented Flight Training and Line Operational
Evaluation in simulators had to be line qualified or line familiar and
had to participate in a line observation program. This line observation
program has the same requirements as the one that is being adopted for
check airmen (simulators) and flight instructors (simulator).
Therefore, this program will not impose any additional burden on the
aviation industry.
In addition, current FAA policy, as part of Flight Standards Work
Program Functions, requires aviation safety inspectors to observe, at
least once annually, half of the check airmen and instructors while
they perform their duties. A portion of the current observation
practice and policy is incorporated into the Code of Federal
Regulations by this rulemaking. Since the above policy and practice
exceed the requirements, this rulemaking will not impose any additional
burden on the airline industry.
The rule affords cost savings to air carriers by allowing them to
hire experienced pilots who are not able to hold a current medical
certificate to check or instruct in flight simulators and flight
training devices if they satisfy the above requirements. These pilots,
many of whom are retired, would probably offer their services at lower
cost to the airlines than the full-time pilots that currently are
performing these functions. Air carriers also will be able to reduce
disruption to their operations by contracting with part-time pilots to
provide training and checking services, thereby eliminating the need to
pull line pilots from their routine duties. The rule also will reduce
costs to the industry because it allows all initial and transition
flight training for check airmen and instructors to be conducted in
simulators or in flight training devices as opposed to the current in-
flight requirement. Accordingly, the FAA finds this rule to be cost-
beneficial because it does not impose any additional costs on the
aviation industry and allows for less costly training of future pilots.
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 Government regulations. The RFA requires
a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if a rule is expected to have a
``significant (positive or negative) economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.'' Based on the standards and thresholds
specified in implementing the FAA Order 2100.14A, Regulatory
Flexibility Criteria and Guidance, the FAA has determined that the rule
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
This rule is expected to have neither an adverse impact on the
trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business abroad nor on foreign
firms doing business in the United States. The cost savings that would
be realized from the rule are not likely to be significant enough to
affect the competitive position of domestic concerns vis-a-vis foreign
concerns.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and based on the
findings in the Regulatory Flexibility Determination and the
International Trade Impact Analysis, the FAA has determined that this
regulation is not significant under Executive Order 12866. 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. This rule is not
considered significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034, February 26, 1979).
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Safety, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
14 CFR Part 135
Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR Parts 121 and 135 as follows:
PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL
OPERATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702,
and 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44901-
44904, 44912, 46105.
2. Section 121.411 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 121.411 Qualifications: Check airmen (airplane) and check airmen
(simulator).
(a) For the purposes of this section and Sec. 121.413:
(1) A check airman (airplane) is a person who is qualified, and
permitted, to conduct flight checks or instruction in an airplane, in a
flight simulator, or in a flight training device for a particular type
airplane.
(2) A check airman (simulator) is a person who is qualified to
conduct flight checks or instruction, but only in a flight simulator or
in a flight training device for a particular type airplane.
(3) Check airmen (airplane) and check airmen (simulator) are those
check airmen who perform the functions described in Sec. 121.401(a)(4).
(b) No certificate holder may use a person, nor may any person
serve as a check airman (airplane) in a training program established
under this subpart unless, with respect to the airplane type involved,
that person--
(1) Holds the airman certificates and ratings required to serve as
a pilot in command, a flight engineer, or a flight navigator, as
applicable, in operations under this part;
(2) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate training phases
for the
[[Page 30742]]
airplane, including recurrent training, that are required to serve as a
pilot in command, flight engineer, or flight navigator, as applicable,
in operations under this part;
(3) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate proficiency or
competency checks that are required to serve as a pilot in command,
flight engineer, or flight navigator, as applicable, in operations
under this part;
(4) Has satisfactorily completed the applicable training
requirements of Sec. 121.413 including in-flight training and practice
for initial and transition training;
(5) Holds at least a Class III medical certificate unless serving
as a required crewmember, in which case holds a Class I or Class II
medical certificate as appropriate;
(6) Has satisfied the recency of experience requirements of
Sec. 121.439; and
(7) Has been approved by the Administrator for the check airman
duties involved.
(c) No certificate holder may use a person nor may any person serve
as a check airman (simulator) in a training program established under
this subpart unless, with respect to the airplane type involved, that
person meets the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section, or--
(1) Holds the airman certificates and ratings, except medical
certificate, required to serve as a pilot in command, a flight
engineer, or a flight navigator, as applicable, in operations under
this part;
(2) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate training phases
for the airplane, including recurrent training, that are required to
serve as a pilot in command, flight engineer, or flight navigator in
operations under this part;
(3) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate proficiency or
competency checks that are required to serve as a pilot in command,
flight engineer, or flight navigator in operations under this part;
(4) Has satisfactorily completed the applicable training
requirements of Sec. 121.413; and
(5) Has been approved by the Administrator for the check airman
(simulator) duties involved.
(d) Completion of the requirements in paragraphs (b) (2), (3), and
(4) or (c) (2), (3), and (4) of this section, as applicable, shall be
entered in the individual's training record maintained by the
certificate holder.
(e) Check airmen who have reached their 60th birthday or who do not
hold an appropriate medical certificate may function as check airmen,
but may not serve as pilot flightcrew members in operations under this
part.
(f) A check airman (simulator) must accomplish the following--
(1) Fly at least two flight segments as a required crewmember for
the type airplane involved within the 12-month period preceding the
performance of any check airman duty in a flight simulator; or
(2) Satisfactorily complete an approved line-observation program
within the period prescribed by that program and that must precede the
performance of any check airman duty in a flight simulator.
(g) The flight segments or line-observation program required in
paragraph (f) of this section are considered to be completed in the
month required if completed in the calendar month before or in the
calendar month after the month in which it is due.
3. Section 121.412 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 121.412 Qualifications: Flight instructors (airplane) and flight
instructors (simulator).
(a) For the purposes of this section and Sec. 121.412:
(1) A flight instructor (airplane) is a person who is qualified to
instruct in an airplane, in a flight simulator, or in a flight training
device for a particular type airplane.
(2) A flight instructor (simulator) is a person who is qualified to
instruct, but only in a flight simulator, in a flight training device,
or both, for a particular type airplane.
(3) Flight instructors (airplane) and flight instructors
(simulator) are those instructors who perform the functions described
in Sec. 121.401(a)(4).
(b) No certificate holder may use a person nor may any person serve
as a flight instructor (airplane) in a training program established
under this subpart unless, with respect to the airplane type involved,
that person--
(1) Holds the airman certificates and rating required to serve as a
pilot in command, a flight engineer, or a flight navigator, as
applicable, in operations under this part;
(2) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate training phases
for the airplane, including recurrent training, that are required to
serve as a pilot in command, flight engineer, or flight navigator, as
applicable, in operations under this part;
(3) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate proficiency or
competency checks that are required to serve as a pilot in command,
flight engineer, or flight navigator, as applicable, in operations
under this part;
(4) Has satisfactorily completed the applicable training
requirements of Sec. 121.414, including in-flight training and practice
for initial and transition training;
(5) Holds at least a Class III medical certificate unless serving
as a required crewmember, in which case holds a Class I or a Class II
medical certificate as appropriate.
(6) Has satisfied the recency of experience requirements of
Sec. 121.439.
(c) No certificate holder may use a person, nor may any person
service as a flight instructor (simulator) in a training program
established under this subpart, unless, with respect to the airplane
type involved, that person meets the provisions of paragraph (b) of
this section, or--
(1) Holds the airman certificates and ratings, except medical
certificate, required to serve as a pilot in command, a flight
engineer, or a flight navigator, as applicable, in operations under
this part except before February 19, 1997 that person need not hold a
type rating for the airplane type involved provided that he or she only
provides the instruction described in Secs. 121.409(b) and 121.441;
(2) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate training phases
for the airplane, including recurrent training, that are required to
serve as a pilot in command, flight engineer, or flight navigator, as
applicable, in operations under this part;
(3) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate proficiency or
competency checks that are required to serve as a pilot in command,
flight engineer, or flight navigator, as applicable, in operations
under this part; and
(4) Has satisfactorily completed the applicable training
requirements of Sec. 121.414.
(d) Completion of the requirements in paragraphs (b) (2), (3), and
(4) or (c) (2), (3), and (4) of this section as applicable shall be
entered in the individual's training record maintained by the
certificate holder.
(e) Airmen who have reached their 60th birthday, or who do not hold
an appropriate medical certificate, may not function as a flight
instructor (airplane), nor may they serve as pilot flightcrew members
in operations under this part.
(f) A flight instructor (simulator) must accomplish the following--
(1) Fly at least two flight segments as a required crewmember for
the type of airplane within the 12-month period preceding the
performance of any flight instructor duty in a flight simulator (and
must hold a Class I or Class II medical certificate as appropriate); or
(2) Satisfactorily complete an approved line-observation program
[[Page 30743]]
within the period prescribed by that program and that must precede the
performance of any check airman duty in a flight simulator.
(g) The flight segments or line-observation program required in
paragraph (f) of this section is considered completed in the month
required if completed in the calendar month before, or the calendar
month after the month in which it is due.
4. Section 121.413 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 121.413 Initial and transition training and checking
requirements: Check airmen (airplane), check airmen (simulator).
(a) No certificate holder may use a person nor may any person serve
as a check airman unless--
(1) That person has satisfactorily completed initial or transition
check airman training; and
(2) Within the preceding 24 calendar months that person
satisfactorily conducts a proficiency or competency check under the
observation of an FAA inspector or an aircrew designated examiner
employed by the operator. The observation check may be accomplished in
part or in full in an airplane, in a flight simulator, or in a flight
training device. This paragraph applies after February 19, 1997.
(b) The observation check required by paragraph (a)(2) of this
section is considered to have been completed in the month required if
completed in the calendar month before, or the calendar month after,
the month in which it is due.
(c) The initial ground training for check airmen must include the
following:
(1) Check airman duties, functions, and responsibilities.
(2) The applicable Code of Federal Regulations and the certificate
holder's policies and procedures.
(3) The appropriate methods, procedures, and techniques for
conducting the required checks.
(4) Proper evaluation of student performance including the
detection of--
(i) Improper and insufficient training; and
(ii) Personal characteristics of an applicant that could adversely
affect safety.
(5) The appropriate corrective action in the case of unsatisfactory
checks.
(6) The approved methods, procedures, and limitations for
performing the required normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures in
the airplane.
(d) The transition ground training for check airmen must include
the approved methods, procedures, and limitations for performing the
required normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures applicable to the
airplane to which the check airman is in transaction.
(e) The initial and transition flight training for pilot check
airmen (airplane), flight engineer check airmen (airplane), and flight
navigator check airmen (airplane) must include the following:
(1) The safety measures for emergency situations that are likely to
develop during a check.
(2) The potential results of improper, untimely, or non-execution
of safety measures during a check.
(3) For pilot check airman (airplane)--
(i) Training and practice in conducting flight checks from the left
and right pilot seats in the required normal, abnormal, and emergency
procedures to ensure competence to conduct the pilot flight checks
required by this part; and
(ii) The safety measures to be taken from either pilot seat for
emergency situations that are likely to develop during a check.
(4) For flight engineer check airmen (airplane) and flight
navigator check airmen (airplane), training to ensure competence to
perform assigned duties.
(f) The requirements of paragraph (e) of this section may be
accomplished in full or in part in flight, in a flight simulator, or in
a flight training device, as appropriate.
(g) The initial and transition flight training for check airmen
(simulator) must include the following:
(1) Training and practice in conducting flight checks in the
required normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures to ensure
competence to conduct the flight checks required by this part. This
training and practice must be accomplished in a flight simulator or in
a flight training device.
(2) Training in the operation of flight simulators or flight
training devices, or both, to ensure competence to conduct the flight
checks required by this part.
5. Section 121.414 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 121.414 Initial and transition training and checking
requirements: flight instructors (airplane), flight instructors
(simulator).
(a) No certificate holder may use a person nor may any person serve
as a flight instructor unless--
(1) That person has satisfactorily completed initial or transition
flight instructor training; and
(2) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, that person
satisfactorily conducts instruction under the observation of an FAA
inspector, an operator check airman, or an aircrew designated examiner
employed by the operator. The observation check may be accomplished in
part or in full in an airplane, in a flight simulator, or in a flight
training device. This paragraph applies after February 19, 1997.
(b) The observation check required by paragraph (a)(2) of this
section is considered to have been completed in the month required if
completed in the calendar month before, or the calendar month after,
the month in which it is due.
(c) The initial ground training for flight instructors must include
the following:
(1) Flight instructor duties, functions, and responsibilities.
(2) The applicable Code of Federal Regulations and the certificate
holder's policies and procedures.
(3) The appropriate methods, procedures, and techniques for
conducting flight instruction.
(4) Proper evaluation of student performance including the
detection of--
(i) Improper and insufficient training; and
(ii) Personal characteristics of an applicant that could adversely
affect safety.
(5) The corrective action in the case of unsatisfactory training
progress.
(6) The approved methods, procedures, and limitations for
performing the required normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures in
the airplane.
(7) Except for holders of a flight instructor certificate--
(i) The fundamental principles of the teaching-learning process;
(ii) Teaching methods and procedures; and
(iii) The instructor-student relationship.
(d) The transition ground training for flight instructors must
include the approved methods, procedures, and limitations for
performing the required normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures
applicable to the airplane to which the flight instructor is in
transition.
(e) The initial and transition flight training for flight
instructors (airplane), flight engineer instructors (airplane), and
flight navigator instructors (airplane) must include the following:
(1) The safety measures for emergency situations that are likely to
develop during instruction.
(2) The potential results of improper, untimely, or non-execution
of safety measures during instruction.
(3) For pilot flight instructor (airplane)--
[[Page 30744]]
(i) In-flight training and practice in conducting flight
instruction from the left and right pilot seats in the required normal,
abnormal, and emergency procedures to ensure competence as an
instructor; and
(ii) The safety measures to be taken from either pilot seat for
emergency situations that are likely to develop during instruction.
(4) For flight engineer instructors (airplane) and flight navigator
instructors (airplane), in-flight training to ensure competence to
perform assigned duties.
(f) The requirements of paragraph (e) of this section may be
accomplished in full or in part in flight, in a flight simulator, or in
a flight training device, as appropriate.
(g) The initial and transition flight training for flight
instructors (simulator) must include the following:
(1) Training and practice in the required normal, abnormal, and
emergency procedures to ensure competence to conduct the flight
instruction requi
FR Doc. 96-14084 Training and Qualification Requirements for Check Airmen and Flight Instructors
red by this part. This training and practice must be
accomplished in full or in part in a flight simulator or in a flight
training device.
(2) Training in the operation of flight simulators or flight
training devices, or both, to ensure competence to conduct the flight
instruction required by this part.
PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON-DEMAND
OPERATIONS.
6. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 44113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709,
44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722.
7. Section 135.337 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 135.337 Qualifications: Check airmen (aircraft) and check airmen
(simulator).
(a) For the purposes of this section and Sec. 135.339:
(1) A check airman (aircraft) is a person who is qualified to
conduct flight checks in an aircraft, in a flight simulator, or in a
flight training device for a particular type aircraft.
(2) A check airman (simulator) is a person who is qualified to
conduct flight checks, but only in a flight simulator, in a flight
training device, or both, for a particular type aircraft.
(3) Check airmen (aircraft) and check airmen (simulator) are those
check airmen who perform the functions described in Secs. 135.321 (a)
and 135.323(a)(4) and (c).
(b) No certificate holder may use a person, nor may any person
serve as a check airman (aircraft) in a training program established
under this subpart unless, with respect to the aircraft type involved,
that person--
(1) Holds the airman certificates and ratings required to serve as
a pilot in command in operations under this part;
(2) Has satisfactorily completed the training phases for the
aircraft, including recurrent training, that are required to serve as a
pilot in command in operations under this part;
(3) Has satisfactorily completed the proficiency or competency
checks that are required to serve as a pilot in command in operations
under this part;
(4) Has satisfactorily completed the applicable training
requirements of Sec. 135.339;
(5) Holds at least a Class III medical certificate unless serving
as a required crewmember, in which case holds a Class I or Class II
medical certificate as appropriate.
(6) Has satisfied the recency of experience requirements of
Sec. 135.247; and
(7) Has been approved by the Administrator for the check airman
duties involved.
(c) No certificate holder may use a person, nor may any person
serve as a check airman (simulator) in a training program established
under this subpart unless, with respect to the aircraft type involved,
that person meets the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section, or--
(1) Holds the applicable airman certificates and ratings, except
medical certificate, required to serve as a pilot in command in
operations under this part;
(2) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate training phases
for the aircraft, including recurrent training, that are required to
serve as a pilot in command in operations under this part;
(3) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate proficiency or
competency checks that are required to serve as a pilot in command in
operations under this part;
(4) Has satisfactorily completed the applicable training
requirements of Sec. 135.339; and
(5) Has been approved by the Administrator for the check airman
(simulator) duties involved.
(d) Completion of the requirements in paragraphs (b) (2), (3), and
(4) or (c) (2), (3), and (4) of this section, as applicable, shall be
entered in the individual's training record maintained by the
certificate holder.
(e) Check airmen who do not hold an appropriate medical certificate
may function as check airmen (simulator), but may not serve as
flightcrew members in operations under this part.
(f) A check airman (simulator) must accomplish the following--
(1) Fly at least two flight segments as a required crewmember for
the type, class, or category aircraft involved within the 12-month
preceding the performance of any check airman duty in a flight
simulator; or
(2) Satisfactorily complete an approved line-observation program
within the period prescribed by that program and that must precede the
performance of any check airman duty in a flight simulator.
(g) The flight segments or line-observation program required in
paragraph (f) of this section are considered to be completed in the
month required if completed in the calendar month before or the
calender month after the month in which they are due.
8. Section 135.338 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 135.338 Qualifications: Flight instructors (aircraft) and flight
instructors (simulator).
(a) For the purposes of this section and Sec. 135.340:
(1) A flight instructor (aircraft) is a person who is qualified to
instruct in an aircraft, in a flight simulator, or in a flight training
device for a particular type, class, or category aircraft.
(2) A flight instructor (simulator) is a person who is qualified to
instruct in a flight simulator, in a flight training device, or in
both, for a particular type, class, or category aircraft.
(3) Flight instructors (aircraft) and flight instructors
(simulator) are those instructors who perform the functions described
in Sec. 135.321(a) and 135.323 (a)(4) and (c).
(b) No certificate holder may use a person, nor may any person
serve as a flight instructor (aircraft) in a training program
established under this subpart unless, with respect to the type, class,
or category aircraft involved, that person--
(1) Holds the airman certificates and ratings required to serve as
a pilot in command in operations under this part;
(2) Has satisfactorily completed the training phases for the
aircraft, including recurrent training, that are required to serve as a
pilot in command in operations under this part;
(3) Has satisfactorily completed the proficiency or competency
checks that are required to serve as a pilot in command in operations
under this part;
(4) Has satisfactorily completed the applicable training
requirements of Sec. 135.340;
(5) Holds at least a Class III medical certificate; and
[[Page 30745]]
(6) Has satisfied the recency of experience requirements of
Sec. 135.247.
(c) No certificate holder may use a person, nor may any person
serve as a flight instructor (simulator) in a training program
established under this subpart, unless, with respect to the type,
class, or category aircraft involved, that person meets the provisions
of paragraph (b) of this section, or--
(1) Holds the airman certificates and ratings, except medical
certificate, required to serve as a pilot in command in operations
under this part except before February 19, 1997 that person need not
hold a type rating for the type, class, or category of aircraft
involved.
(2) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate training phases
for the aircraft, including recurrent training, that are required to
serve as a pilot in command in operations under this part;
(3) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate proficiency or
competency checks that are required to serve as a pilot in command in
operations under this part; and
(4) Has satisfactorily completed the applicable training
requirements of Sec. 135.340.
(d) Completion of the requirements in paragraphs (b) (2), (3), and
(4) or (c) (2), (3), and (4) of this section, as applicable, shall be
entered in the individual's training record maintained by the
certificate holder.
(e) An airman who does not hold a medical certificate may function
as a flight instructor in an aircraft if functioning as a non-required
crewmember, but may not serve as a flightcrew member in operations
under this part.
(f) A flight instructor (simulator) must accomplish the following--
(1) Fly at least two flight segments as a required crewmember for
the type, class, or category aircraft involved within the 12-month
period preceding the performance of any flight instructor duty in a
flight simulator; or
(2) Satisfactorily complete an approved line-observation program
within the period prescribed by that program and that must precede the
performance of any check airman duty in a flight simulator.
(g) The flight segments or line-observation program required in
paragraph (f) of this section are considered completed in the month
required if completed in the calendar month before, or in the calendar
month after, the month in which they are due.
9. Section 135.339 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 135.339 Initial and transition training and checking: Check
airmen (aircraft), check airmen (simulator).
(a) No certificate holder may use a person nor may any person serve
as a check airman unless--
(1) That person has satisfactorily completed initial or transition
check airman training; and
(2) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, that person
satisfactorily conducts a proficiency or competency check under the
observation of an FAA inspector or an aircrew designated examiner
employed by the operator. The observation check may be accomplished in
part or in full in an aircraft, in a flight simulator, or in a flight
training device. This paragraph applies after February 19, 1997.
(b) The observation check required by paragraph (a)(2) of this
section is considered to have been completed in the month required if
completed in the calendar month before or the calendar month after the
month in which it is due.
(c) The initial ground training for check airmen must include the
following:
(1) Check airman duties, functions, and responsibilities.
(2) The applicable Code of Federal Regulations and the certificate
holder's policies and procedures.
(3) The applicable methods, procedures, and techniques for
conducting the required checks.
(4) Proper evaluation of student performance including the
detection of--
(i) Improper and insufficient training; and
(ii) Personal characteristics of an applicant that could adversely
affect safety.
(5) The corrective action in the case of unsatisfactory checks.
(6) The approved methods, procedures, and limitations for
performing the required normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures in
the aircraft.
(d) The transition ground training for check airmen must include
the approved methods, procedures, and limitations for performing the
required normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures applicable to the
aircraft to which the check airman is in transition.
(e) The initial and transition flight training for check airmen
(aircraft) must include the following--
(1) The safety measures for emergency situations that are likely to
develop during a check;
(2) The potential results of improper, untimely, or nonexecution of
safety measures during a check;
(3) Training and practice in conducting flight checks from the left
and right pilot seats in the required normal, abnormal, and emergency
procedures to ensure competence to conduct the pilot flight checks
required by this part; and
(4) The safety measures to be taken from either pilot seat for
emergency situations that are likely to develop during checking.
(f) The requirements of paragraph (e) of this section may be
accomplished in full or in part in flight, in a flight simulator, or in
a flight training device, as appropriate.
(g) The initial and transition flight training for check airmen
(simulator) must include the following:
(1) Training and practice in conducting flight checks in the
required normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures to ensure
competence to conduct the flight checks required by this part. This
training and practice must be accomplished in a flight simulator or in
a flight training device.
(2) Training in the operation of flight simulators, flight training
devices, or both, to ensure competence to conduct the flight checks
required by this part.
10. Section 135.340 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 135.340 Initial and transition training and checking: Flight
instructors (aircraft), flight instructors (simulator).
(a) No certificate holder may use a person nor may any person serve
as a flight instructor unless--
(1) That person has satisfactorily completed initial or transition
flight instructor training; and
(2) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, that person
satisfactorily conducts instruction under the observation of an FAA
inspector, as operator check airman, or an aircrew designated examiner
employed by the operator. The observation check may be accomplished in
part or in full in an aircraft, in a flight simulator, or in a flight
training device. This paragraph applies after February 19, 1997.
(b) The observation check required by paragraph (a)(2) of this
section is considered to have been completed in the month required if
completed in the calendar month before, or the calendar month after,
the month in which it is due.
(c) The initial ground training for flight instructors must include
the following:
(1) Flight instructor duties, functions, and responsibilities.
(2) The applicable Code of Federal Regulations and the certificate
holder's policies and procedures.
[[Page 30746]]
(3) The applicable methods, procedures, and techniques for
conducting flight instruction.
(4) Proper evaluation of student performance including the
detection of--
(i) Improper and insufficient training; and
(ii) Personal characteristics of an applicant that could adversely
affect safety.
(5) The corrective action in the case of unsatisfactory training
progress.
(6) The approved methods, procedures, and limitations for
performing the required normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures in
the aircraft.
(7) Except for holders of a flight instructor certificate--
(i) The fundamental principles of the teaching-learning process;
(ii) Teaching methods and procedures; and
(iii) The instructor-student relationship.
(d) The transition ground training for flight instructors must
include the approved methods, procedures, and limitations for
performing the required normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures
applicable to the type, class, or category aircraft to which the flight
instructor is in transition.
(e) The initial and transition flight training for flight
instructors (aircraft) must include the following--
(1) The safety measures for emergency situations that are likely to
develop during instruction;
(2) The potential results of improper or untimely safety measures
during instruction;
(3) Training and practice from the left and right pilot seats in
the required normal, abnormal, and emergency maneuvers to ensure
competence to conduct the flight instruction required by this part; and
(4) The safety measures to be taken from either the left or right
pilot seat for emergency situations that are likely to develop during
instruction.
(f) The requirements of paragraph (e) of this section may be
accomplished in full or in part in flight, in a flight simulator, or in
a flight training device, as appropriate.
(g) The initial and transition flight training for a flight
instructor (simulator) must include the following:
(1) Training and practice in the required normal, abnormal, and
emergency procedures to ensure competence to conduct the flight
instruction required by this part. These maneuvers and procedures must
be accomplished in full or in part in a flight simulator or in a flight
training device.
(2) Training in the operation of flight simulators, flight training
devices, or both, to ensure competence to conduct the flight
instruction required by this part.
Issued in Washington, D.C., on May 30, 1996.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-14084 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14082 Advanced Simulation Plan Revisions
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30726-30732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14082]
[[Page 30725]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Part 121
Advanced Simulation Plan Revisions; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 30726]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 121
[Docket No. 28072; Amdt. No. 121-258]
RIN 2120-AF29
Advanced Simulation Plan Revisions
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule: Updates the terminology used to describe
simulators; eliminates the requirement that the minimum of 1 year of
employment as an instructor or check airman be with the operator of the
simulator; and authorizes the use of Level C simulators for initial and
upgrade training and checking for second-in-command (SIC) duties. This
action responds to concerns identified by certain affected certificate
holders in petitions for exemption. It is intended to alleviate
unnecessary training costs while maintaining an equivalent level of
safety.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 17, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary E. Davis, Project Development
Branch, AFS-240, Air Transportation Division, Office of Flight
Standards, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202) 267-3747.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Final Rules
Any person may obtain a copy of this final rule by submitting a
request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking,
ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by
calling (202) 267-9677. Communications must identify the notice number
of this final rule.
Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future
rules should request from the above office a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A which describes the application procedure.
Background
Appendix H to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 121,
``Advanced Simulation Plan,'' provides guidelines and a means for
achieving flightcrew training and checking in advanced airplane
simulators. The three-phase plan provides standards for a progressive
upgrade of airplane simulators so that the total scope of flightcrew
training can be enhanced.
Appendix H specifically describes the simulator and visual system
requirements that must be met to obtain approval to conduct certain
training and checking in the particular type of simulator (Phase I, II,
or III).
Appendix H was developed and adopted when there were no ``advanced
simulators.'' Currently, however, advanced simulators exist which have
permitted virtual duplication of many aircraft performance
characteristics and systems. As a result, the vast majority of U.S.
airline pilot training is now conducted in these advanced simulators.
According to industry members, however, certain limitations originally
incorporated into Appendix H still require a small, yet relatively
expensive, amount of training to be completed in the actual airplane.
In light of their highly satisfactory experience with these
simulators, some industry members believe that Level C simulators
should be approved for those flightcrew training and checking maneuvers
that currently are permitted only in the aircraft or in Level D
simulators. (The differences between Level C and Level D simulators are
discussed in more detail below.) In a petition for exemption dated
October 12, 1992, the Air Transport Association, on behalf of its
affected member airlines and other similarly situated airlines,
petitioned for an exemption to provide for initial training in a Level
C simulator. Trans World Airlines and Tower Airlines petitioned
individually to use a Level C simulator to conduct limited initial and
upgrade training and checking functions that would normally be
conducted in a Level D simulator. Agreeing in part with the
petitioners' supportive information and, based on its own experience,
the FAA granted some limited relief for training and checking.
More recently, United Airlines (United) has requested similar but
slightly more extensive relief than previously granted. United believes
that its experience with advanced simulation, as well as the FAA's own
experience, more than adequately justifies expending the scope of
flightcrew training and checking in a Level C simulator. In support of
its request, United points out that: (1) The same training curricula
and pilot proficiency standards would apply to a Level C or Level D
simulator; (2) these curricula can be implemented and proficiency
demonstrated effectively in a Level C simulator; and (3) daily local
FAA oversight of training and checking programs will assure that these
curricula and standards remain sufficient.
United further believes that its request would be in the public
interest since it is universally acknowledged that simulator training
is superior to training in an actual aircraft and the public is served
best when high quality training is conducted in the safest and most
cost-effective manner.
The FAA agrees with much of United's rationale in its petition;
however, after consideration of the supportive information, the FAA
believes that United is not alone or unique in its request. Therefore,
the FAA has determined that the appropriate response to the United
petition for exemption is to change the existing regulations. On
February 14, 1995, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) (60 FR 8490) in which it proposed to revise and clarify certain
requirements of part 121, appendix H. The FAA received nine comments on
its proposal. The commenters included the Air Transport Association
(ATA), Simuflite, the Regional Airline Association (RAA), the Airline
Pilots Association (ALPA), the Federal Express Corporation (FedEx),
United, Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc. (ASA), American Airlines
(American), and an individual whose affiliation was not revealed. ALPA
and the individual were the only commenters who were not generally
supportive of the proposal and made several recommendations. Other
commenters expressed general support with minor modifications. All
comments are discussed below under ``Discussion of the Final Rule.''
Discussion of the Final Rule
Terminology
Simulators historically have been referred to in terms of
``phases'' because it was expected that operators would be upgrading
their simulator inventories in phases while exercising simulator
privileges commensurate with the phase of the simulator. The upgrading
of simulators in phases is now essentially complete and the designation
of ``phase'' for identification of simulator complexity is no longer
descriptive. Operators no longer begin at a lower level of
qualification and upgrade in phases. The tendency is to acquire a given
level simulator that best meets their needs. The agency and the
industry now commonly refer to simulators in terms of ``levels.'' The
FAA received two comments, from Simulflite and United, on this proposal
to modify existing appendix H terminology. Both commenters supported
the FAA's proposal to replace the term ``phase'' with the term
``level.''
[[Page 30727]]
This rule, therefore, revises appendix H, as discussed below, to
replace the old terminology with the new throughout the appendix. The
new terminology will be used throughout this preamble in discussing
other amendments to this rule.
The levels currently used to describe a particular simulator
compared with the older phase designations are:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New terminology Old terminology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A................................... Visual.
Level B................................... Phase I.
Level C................................... Phase II.
Level D................................... Phase III.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorizing Additional Training and Checking in a Level C Simulator
All simulators duplicate or simulate the functions of an airplane
to varying levels of accuracy. The FAA currently requires that, for
each higher level of simulator, the simulator duplicate the performance
of the airplane over larger and more critical portions of the
airplane's operating envelope. This performance must be shown by
documented evidence. Level D simulators must provide the highest level
of flight realism. They must perform as the airplane performs over the
largest portion of the airplane's operating envelope, while providing
the most complete and technically accurate environment possible.
Evidence of this performance must include certain sophisticated
aerodynamic modeling that allows more complete replication of the
performance of the airplane.
Level C simulators are designed to operate over the same portion of
the airplane's operating envelope as Level D simulators, and do so
under a relatively sophisticated performance verification process.
Level C simulators, however, are not required to have sophisticated
aerodynamic modeling factors. Nor do they undergo the degree of
performance verification that Level D simulators do.
The FAA proposed that Level C simulators may be used for initial
qualification and upgrade training and checking for SIC. Because of
performance differences between Level C and level D simulators,
however, the FAA proposed that pilots qualified using Level C
simulators meet certain prerequisite levels of experience. Further, the
FAA proposed that these pilots be required to have supervised post-
qualification operational experience.
Several commenters discussed the various capabilities of Level C
and D simulators. The opinions of the various commenters on this issue
are paraphrased as follows:
ATA: There is no evidence to show that a Level D simulator makes
any difference in the training and qualification of pilots when
compared to the training available in a Level C simulator. There is no
difference in flight dynamic performance between Level C and D
simulators. Level C can be treated as Level D for all training and
checking functions.
FedEx: The only perceptible difference between a Level C and D
simulator is that a Level D simulator has a daylight visual system. A
Level C simulator is capable of providing the same quality of training
as a Level D simulator. The pilot must pass the same flight test
standards on all required maneuvers in either Level C or Level D
simulators. A 1984 study concluded that a simulator, less sophisticated
than a Level C simulator, will support a large majority of the events
needed for ATP certification. Moreover, this study also concluded that
for an ATP or type rating for students with a commercial rating (1,500
hours of flight) no requirement exists for a daylight visual system.
United: The continued efforts to justify uses for a Level D
simulator are simply not supported by airline training experience.
Level C simulators are completely adequate for all training and
checking. Level D simulators cost more to buy and maintain. The
aerodynamic models and performance of Level C and D simulators are
identical. The real differences between Level C and Level D simulators
are the availability of daylight visual scenes, some special effects,
and objective tuning of sound and motion cues.
ASA: A Level C simulator should be allowed for full training and
checking for initial SIC. The FAA also should allow partial credit for
Level B under appendix H. The only significant difference is the visual
system, which, except for circle-to-land maneuvers is not a factor.
Level 5, 6, and 7 Flight Training Devices should be allowed credit
under appendix H. This would allow a combination of flight training
devices and Level B or C training.
American: A Level D simulator has an extremely limited training
value advantage over a Level C simulator. With the recent technological
advances in visual systems, a Level C simulator could be more valuable
from a training perspective than some Level D simulators. The Level C
simulator with the wide visual system is superior to the Level D
simulator with the conventional monitor optics display in meeting
training objectives.
ALPA: If a Level C simulator can be substituted for a Level D
simulator, then how is training enhanced and safety maintained? Level D
simulators provide airframe icing effects and realistic airport
lighting. They also provide airframe buffet and visual scenes such as
landing illusions, overwater approaches, and rising terrain on the
approach path.
Individual: Simulators are not all that they should be--visual
cues, inflight dynamics, landing maneuvers, and total environment
experiences have yet to be fully developed with current simulator
technology.
FAA response: The discussion of the differences between Level C and
Level D simulator programs includes consideration for the performance
standards of each and how each level of qualification may be applied to
training and checking. Application of a specific qualification level
depends in turn on student experience levels and the overall
curriculum. The FAA still believes, as industry did when appendix H was
implemented, that lower experience levels require more accurate flight
dynamic simulation and training in a wide variety of special effects
such as weather and runway contaminants. The Level D simulator
performance standards exceed Level C in special effects to include
daylight visual scenes and more accurate testing for flight dynamics,
motion, and sound. It has always been FAA's intent that the special
effects required of each qualification level be used in the curriculum
for initial and upgrade pilot qualification.
The FAA understands ALPA's concern that the special effects (to
include daylight visual scenes) required of Level D simulators
currently are not being exercised in contemporary training programs as
originally intended. These effects are one of the key elements required
for the different experience levels acceptable for use in Levels C and
D.
One commenter, ASA, suggested that appendix H should ``allow
partial credit for Level B,'' and that ``Levels 5, 6, and 7 Flight
Training Devices should be credited under appendix H.'' The FAA
believes that items 1. and 2. of the ``Advanced Simulation Training
Program'' provide the latitude to integrate Level A, B, C, and D
simulators with other simulators and training devices to maximize the
total training, checking, and certification functions.
The 1984 FAA study referenced by FedEx assumed that the ATP/Type
rating applicant met the experience requirements for an ATP as provided
under Sec. 61.155. While this is a higher experience level than that
required of an SI for part 121 operations, it speaks directly to the
application of the
[[Page 30728]]
performance differences between Level C and Level D simulators and the
related PIC and SIC qualifications and certification credits. For
example, SIC applicants that do not meet Sec. 61.155 experience may
qualify in a Level D simulator, while those applicants that do meet
this experience may qualify in a Level C simulator.
The FAA believes that further studies are needed to explore the
entire issue of ``out-of-the-window'' visual cue requirements relative
to the current and projected state of the art. A research requirement
for this study has been established. Industry participation is planned
and judged essential to the success of this research.
The FAA agrees with the commenters who have indicated that the
aerodynamic performance of Level D has been generally accepted as the
industry standard for all advanced simulators including Level C.
Therefore, the FAA accepts that the aerodynamic performance of some
(late model) Level C simulators may be identical to Level D simulators.
Level C simulators that meet Level D aerodynamic performance standards
provide training benefits in some areas equal to Level D simulators.
However, the use of Level D aerodynamics is not required of Level C,
and Level C simulators are not tested and qualified to Level D
aerodynamic standards.
Given 13 years of experience using Level C simulators, and the
rigorous qualification process and performance standards required for
Level C simulators, the FAA adopts its proposal to allow Level C
simulators to be used for initial qualification and upgrade training
and checking for SIC.
Prior Aeronautical Experience
The FAA proposed to add a new paragraph 4 to the proposed section
entitled ``Level C, Training and Checking Permitted.'' Under this
proposal, the FAA would permit SIC applicants to obtain initial and
upgrade training and certification checks in Level C simulators if
certain preconditions are met. This new paragraph, as proposed, would
require that the applicant meet the prior aeronautical experience
requirements for an ATP certificate and airplane rating under
Sec. 61.155, before beginning training in a Level C simulator and
before being checked under Sec. 61.157 in a Level C simulator for an
ATP certificate or rating.
Simuflite expressed uncertainty regarding the lack of any
requirement for recency of experience and no restrictions on
prerequisite experience for SIC applicants who meet the aeronautical
experience requirements of Sec. 61.155 in ``the'' airplane. According
to Simuflite, the proposal should have stipulated that the applicants
possess the experience requirements of Sec. 61.155 in ``an'' airplane
of equivalent class. As for the proposed revisions to the operating
experience provisions, Simuflite agreed that operating experience
should be acquired performing the duties of the respective crew
position under the supervision of a check pilot and regardless of
whether the training was done in a Level C or D simulator. However,
according to Simuflite, the provision to make operating experience
requirements more stringent for the SIC who received training in a
Level C infers that there is some belief that the training may be
insufficient and inferior.
In regard to Sec. 121.434(f), RAA recommended that the FAA
eliminate from the final rule the proposed restriction which would not
permit SIC pilots trained in a Level C simulator to reduce the hours of
initial operating experience by up to 50 percent by the substitution of
one additional takeoff and landing for each hour of flight.
FedEx stated that it could only agree that SIC's should have to
meet the flight experience requirements of Sec. 61.155, if qualifying
in a Level C simulator, if an ATP certificate is involved. If the FAA
is going to require SIC's to meet the requirements of Sec. 61.155, then
it should require all pilots qualifying as SIC's to meet those
requirements, regardless of the method used to qualify the individual.
According to FedEx, there probably are not many part 121 SIC's who do
not meet the requirements of Sec. 61.155. Further, FedEx did not agree
that Sec. 121.434(c)(2) should be tied to all pilots trained in a Level
C simulator. For FedEx, if an SIC needs supervised operating
experience, then it should be made applicable to all SIC's, regardless
of how they were qualified.
United supported a requirement for SIC operating experience to be
gained in the SIC duty position, supervised by a check pilot. However,
United did not support the proposed requirement that the operating
experience consist of at least four takeoffs and four landings as the
sole manipulator of the controls. According to United, experience with
``pilot not flying'' duties is as important as ``pilot flying'' duties.
In this regard, United concurred with ATA's opinion on rewording
Sec. 121.434(c)(2)(ii)(B). United further noted that the question of
whether or not to amend Sec. 121.434(f) in this proposal (Notice 95-2)
differed from FAA's earlier proposal to amend that same section in
Notice 93-1.
American commented that, since some training in the flight training
segment may actually begin in either a flight training device or Levels
A or B simulators to accomplish events permitted under part 121,
appendix E, the third sentence of the preamble discussion under the
heading ``Prior Aeronautical Experience'' should have been worded as
follows: ``The rule would require * * * under Sec. 61.155, before
beginning the flight training segment of a training program that uses a
Level C simulator to accomplish the inflight training items under part
121, appendix E and the part 61, appendix A check for the ATP
certificate or rating under Sec. 61.157.'' Like United, American
concurred with ATA's suggested rewording of Sec. 121.434(c)(2)(ii)(B).
FAA Response: Regarding amendments to Sec. 121.434, the FAA agrees
with the commenters and has determined that these proposed amendments
need not be retained. The FAA, in its deliberations and review of
comments, agrees with United which pointed out that the questions on
whether or not to amend Sec. 121.434(f) was contradictory to an earlier
FAA proposal. Some commenters also stated that the proposal to require
four takeoffs and four landings for the SIC as sole manipulator of the
controls was excessive and did not address pilot-not-flying duties. The
FAA has decided that the changes made to Sec. 121.434 in the final rule
entitled ``Pilot Operating and Experience Requirements'' (60 FR 20858,
April 27, 1995) satisfies these issues raised by commenters and
adequately addresses the safety concerns of the FAA. Therefore, the FAA
will not propose additional amendment to Sec. 121.434.
Regarding the proposed change to require an SIC to meet the flight
experience requirements of Sec. 61.155, the FAA has determined that
Level D simulators, used in an approved appendix H training program
that may use the prescribed special effects for the 250-hour
commercial, instrument-rated pilot, constitute the minimum acceptable
level for initial and upgrade SIC qualification in part 121 today.
Using a Level C simulator for training the 1500-hour ATP applicant is
equal to or better than using a Level D similator for training the 250-
hour commercial, instrument-rated pilot. The FAA believes that
experience requirements are a vital part of qualification, as well as
any required certification within qualification. Therefore, it is
appropriate to require Sec. 61.155 experience for SIC qualification and
training and paragraph 4 under proposed ``Level C, Training and
[[Page 30729]]
Checking Permitted'' is adopted as proposed.
Modifying Employment Requirement
This final rule will remove the requirement in appendix H (in
paragraph 3 of the section entitled ``Advanced Simulation Training
Program'') that each instructor and check airman have been employed for
at least 1 year by the certificate holder applying for approval of the
program. The FAA's intention, in originally requiring a minimum period
of 1-year of employment with the operator, was to ensure suitable
experience levels for individuals selected to be instructors and check
airmen. The most sophisticated simulator can be of little value without
an experienced, well-trained instructor or check airman to operate it.
However, the agency has concluded that this goal can be achieved by 1
year of experience serving as an instructor or check airman with any
part 121 operator. The FAA believes that this amount of instructor
experience, in addition to the training prerequisites for these
individuals in appendix H, is an adequate level of preparation for an
instructor or check airman in a Level C simulator. Modifying the
employment requirement in this way will not decrease safety. However,
it should be noted that, instructors and check airmen may participate
in more than one operator's approved training program; each operator
must provide training for each instructor and check airman in its
training program. Thus, an instructor or check airman who instructs for
more than one operator must receive training in each operator's
program.
Similarly, the FAA proposed to revise the section entitled ``Phase
II, Training and Checking Permitted'' in appendix H to provide that
pilots seeking to upgrade to pilot in command (PIC) do not have to have
obtained the prerequisite SIC experience ``with the operator,'' nor
have served or be serving as SIC ``with that operator.'' Again, the FAA
believes that the level of experience required by an approved training
program, in addition to the training prerequisites for these
individuals in appendix H and elsewhere under the Federal Aviation
Regulations, establishes an adequate level of preparation regardless of
employment with any specific operator.
Commenters generally supported the FAA's proposal to remove certain
employment restrictions. However, ATA suggested deleting paragraph 3 of
the Advanced Simulation Plan entirely or, if not possible, modifying
paragraph 3 to make clear that anyone who has 1 year of experience--
namely with the military, a manufacturer, or a foreign airline--is
qualified.
RAA commented that previous experience should not be limited to
airplanes of the same group. According to RAA, the FAA should require 1
year as PIC or instructor pilot, to include military time. Further, RAA
indicated that pilots should have a type rating and should have
completed an air carrier approved training program.
FedEx commented that the proposal should be modified to include
flight instructors with experience in airplanes of the same group who
gained experience in the military, with airframe manufacturers, and/or
with training centers.
United supported the FAA's proposal to delete the requirement for
employment ``by the certificate holder'' under existing paragraph 3 of
``Advanced Simulation Training Program'' because this relief has
already been offered through exemptions issued to United and to ATA. It
also supported the FAA's proposal to delete the words ``with the
operator'' for PIC initial or upgrade training, under existing
paragraphs 2(a) (ii) and (iii) of ``Phase II Training and Checking
Permitted.''
United concurred with other commenters that equivalent military
experience should be allowed.
ASA indicated that appendix H should allow established operators to
introduce new aircraft with instructors currently employed without
waiting 1 year to gain in-type experience.
American echoed the exemption experience mentioned by United and
further stated that this experience has proven that training received
by a pilot who has already served as SIC on a large jet aircraft
provides an equivalent transfer of learning.
ALPA was opposed to the proposal indicating that it only addresses
the issue of airplane knowledge and qualification but not familiarity
with company policies and operating procedures.
FAA response: the FAA has carefully reviewed commenters' opinions
concerning its proposal to amend the 1-year employment requirement for
instructors and check airmen in part 121, appendix H and in certain
exemptions. The commenters generally concurred that safety
considerations should not be based on employment status but rather on
prior in-flight experience in the group of airplanes in which the pilot
is instructing or checking. By amending the employment provisions of
appendix H, the FAA's intent is to honor all experience gained as an
instructor or evaluator in group. This would include experience under
part 121, part 135, corporate, and military operations.
Further, in response to United's comment, the FAA adopts its
proposal to delete the words ``by the certificate holder'' from
paragraph 3 of ``Advanced Simulation Training Program'' and to delete
the words ``with the operator'' from paragraphs 2(a) (ii) and (iii) of
``Phase II Training and Checking Permitted.''
The FAA understands ALPA's concern that instructors and check
airmen should be familiar with ``company policies and operating
procedures.'' However, as previously stated, the FAA believes that the
student entry level of experience required by an approved training
program, in addition to the training prerequisites for these
individuals in appendix H, and elsewhere under part 121, establishes an
adequate level of preparation.
Clarifying Training and Certification Check Requirements for Initial
and Upgrading Training for SIC's Upgrading to PIC
Under the proposed section entitled ``Level C, Training and
Checking Permitted,'' the FAA proposed to redesignate paragraph 2(a) as
paragraph 2 and paragraph 2(b) as paragraph 3 to clearly distinguish
between the prerequisites for initial versus upgrade training and
checking. This paragraph restructuring was proposed in order to
eliminate the need for the flush paragraph currently at the end of the
section.
Current paragraph 2(a) sets forth the prerequisites for training
and checking in a Level C simulator for SIC's upgrading to PIC in the
same equipment. For example, a pilot serving as SIC in a Boeing 727
upgrading to PIC in the same airplane would have to meet the
requirements of this paragraph. Under new paragraph 2, as proposed,
these requirements would not change. The pilot would still have to have
previously qualified as SIC in the equipment, be currently serving as
SIC in an airplane in the same group, and have at least 500 hours of
actual flight time as SIC in an airplane in the same group. These
requirements are consistent with the definition of upgrade training
under Subpart N--Training Program. Section 121.400(c)(3) defines
``upgrade training'' as the training required for crewmembers who have
qualified and served as SIC or flight engineer on a particular airplane
type, before they serve as PIC or SIC, respectively, on that airplane.
The requirements of current paragraph 2(b) must be read in
conjunction with the final paragraph in
[[Page 30730]]
the section to determine that it applies to initial training and
checking for SIC's upgrading to PIC in an airplane type in which the
pilot has never served as SIC. This SIC has experience in the same
group of airplanes, but not in the same airplane to which the pilot
wants to upgrade. For example, a pilot serving as an SIC in a Boeing
737 initially upgrading to PIC in a Boeing 727 must meet the
requirements of this paragraph.
New paragraph 3, as proposed, would not change this requirement,
but would make it easier for the reader to see that it applies to
initial training and checking. The pilot would still have to be
employed by an operator, be currently serving as SIC in an airplane in
the same group, have served as SIC on at least two airplanes of the
same group, and have a minimum of 2500 flight hours as SIC in airplanes
in the same group. Because proposed new paragraph 3 would refer to
``initial'' training, the language in the current last paragraph is no
longer needed to explain that pilots meeting these requirements may
upgrade to another airplane in that group in which that pilot has not
previously qualified. The requirements in new paragraph 3 continue to
be consistent with Sec. 121.400(c)(1), which defines ``initial
training'' as the training required for crewmembers and dispatchers who
have not qualified and served in the same capacity on another airplane
of the same group.
The FAA received two comments on its proposed clarifications to
initial and upgrade training requirements for SICs under paragraphs (2)
and (3) of the section entitled ``Level C, Training and Checking
Permitted.'' (Comments received on current flight-hour requirements are
discussed below under ``Modifying Current Flight-Hour Requirements.'')
ATA requested that paragraph 2(c) be reworded as follows: ``Is
currently serving as second in command in an airplane in the same group
as the type airplane to which the pilot is upgrading.'' It further
requested that proposed paragraph 3(c), which would require a pilot to
have served as SIC on at least two airplanes of the same group, be
deleted.
American concurred with ATA's requested modification of paragraph
2(c) and ATA's suggestion to delete proposed paragraph 3(c). American
further proposed, however, adding a new paragraph 5 to address PIC's
seeking an additional type rating on an ATP within the same group
without meeting flying time experience requirements.
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree that removing the requirement
in proposed paragraph 3(c) for a PIC initial applicant to have ``served
as SIC on at least two airplanes of the same group'' will yield an
adequate level of safety. Removing this paragraph would allow an SIC
flying hour credits outside of part 121 operations.
American's comment that additional language be added to allow PIC's
to seek an additional type rating on an ATP within the same group
without meeting flying time experience requirements may have merit.
Although it would be beyond the scope of the proposal to add a new
paragraph 5, as American proposes, the FAA believes that the new PIC
upgrade language as adopted in paragraph 2 responds directly to this
concern.
Modifying Current Minimum Flight-Hour Experience Requirements
In crafting its proposal, the FAA contemplated whether to propose
revising certain flight-hour experience requirements for initial and
upgrade training and checking in a Level C simulator. Currently, pilots
upgrading from SIC to PIC in equipment in which they have previously
qualified as SIC are required to have at least 500 hours of actual
flight time while serving as SIC in an airplane in the same group.
Similarly, pilots who are initially upgrading from SIC to PIC in other
equipment in which the pilot has not been previously qualified, must
have a minimum of 2500 hours as SIC in airplanes of the same group as
the equipment to which they are upgrading.
The flight hour experience requirements ensure that a pilot has
adequate experience in order to upgrade to PIC. These values were
established, based on the collective opinions of the FAA and industry
members, when appendix H was originally adopted. Since then, industry
members have argued that the required hours are excessive. Based on the
success of some industry members who have operated under exemptions
that provided certain relief of these flight-hour requirements and
other specific requirements for upgrade training under Subpart N, the
FAA indicated in the NPRM preamble that it may propose, at some future
date, to eliminate the 500 flight-hour requirement and reduce from 2500
to 500 the number of flight hours required for initial upgrade training
and checking.
In its preamble, the FAA requested comments and additional
information that may justify proposing to modify these current flight
hour requirements in a future rulemaking. These comments are discussed
below.
ATA proposed that the FAA eliminate the requirement for an SIC to
have 500 flight hours in an airplane in the same group and reduce from
2500 to 500 the number of flight hours required for initial upgrade
training and checking. ATA recommended that the 500-hour requirement
apply to any pilot initially upgrading to PIC regardless of whether the
qualification was based on the use of a Level C simulator. If this is
not done, the perception will remain, according to ATA, that training
and checking in a Level C simulator is inferior to other methods of
pilot qualification.
FedEx concurred with ATA.
United commented that there need be no prerequisites for SIC or PIC
training or checking in Level C simulators, either initial, upgrade,
transition, or recurrent in an airline training program.
American indicated that it is has successfully exercised an ATA
exemption provision which allows the upgrading PIC, who is previously
qualified in the equipment, to train and check in a Level C simulator.
Under this exemption there is no requirement for the SIC to possess 500
hours flying time with the operator as an SIC. Further this exemption
allows the initial PIC candidate, not previously qualified in the
equipment, to possess only 500 hours flying time with the operator as
an SIC instead of 2500 hours in two different airplanes of the same
group.
ALPA did not agree with the current regulations that allow a pilot
to receive initial training exclusively in a Level D simulator without
experience prerequisites. According to ALPA, with the possibility of
low-time pilots and ab initio candidates being placed in large aircraft
in the near future, training needs to be enhanced, and not reduced in
quality.
FAA Response: The FAA appreciates the invited comments on reducing
current minimum flight-hour requirements.
Standardizing Language and Eliminating Obsolete References
As discussed above, the term ``phase'' is no longer used to
describe the various simulators referred to in Appendix H. Accordingly,
the FAA proposed to replace ``phase'' with ``level'' wherever it
appears and to use the current alphabetical designations for the
various levels.
In addition, the FAA proposed to remove the section entitled
``Phase IIA Interim Simulator Upgrade Plan for part 121 Operators'' as
obsolete. For the same reason, it proposed to remove
[[Page 30731]]
paragraph 7 of the section entitled ``Advanced Simulation Training
Program'' which references Phase IIA. Under Phase IIA, any part 121
operator could conduct Phase II training for 3 and \1/2\ years from the
date it was approved for Phase I in a simulator approved for the
landing maneuver under Phase I. The carrier's upgrade plan had to be
submitted to the FAA before July 30, 1981. Thus, these provisions are
no longer effective.
United supported changing the terminology and also deleting all
reference to ``Phase IIA.'' According to United, these changes
certainly are appropriate and are supported.
The proposed removal of the obsolete sections is adopted as
proposed.
Additional Comments
The FAA received some comments that are general in nature and that
do not specifically reference the proposed amendments.
For example, United proposed deleting the word ``Plan'' from the
title of appendix H since it is no longer, and has not been for many
years, a plan.
Simuflite recommended that it would seem reasonable to place
simulator and training device requirements in a separate regulatory
structure, since it is clear that all segments of the aviation training
industry may exercise the permitted simulation training and checking.
Simulator standards should stand alone in a rule addressing the use of
simulation equipment as appropriate to operations conducted under those
rules. The proposed changes should be expanded to clarify that the same
training and checking authority in Level C simulators be extended to
those part 135 operators who will not be required to comply with
subparts N and O of part 121.
ALPA would like to see an additional simulator category, perhaps
Level E, which would be a Level D with all aircraft devices such as
Traffic Collision Avoidance System, weather radar, Global Positioning
Warning System, terrain presentations, and more realistic air traffic
control communications. This would add an additional level of reality
to pilot training.
FAA response: The FAA appreciates all of above comments and
believes that they may have merit. In particular, the FAA agrees that
there is room for upgrading simulation standards to include special
equipment operations such as weather radar and TCAS (integrated where
appropriate), and realistic air-to-ground communications (ATC, Weather,
Company, etc.). These comments cannot be incorporated into this final
rule, however, because they do not address proposals that have been
published for public comment and are therefore outside the scope of the
proposal.
In addition, ATA commented that the comment period should have been
longer than 30 days to allow for more precise comments and economic
analysis.
FAA Response: In allotting the 30-day comment period, the FAA was
responding to the large number of requests for relief from the aviation
industry. The FAA considered it to be in the best interest of safety
and the public to expedite the regulation by every means possible. The
FAA did not violate any requirements of the Administrative Procedures
Act, which does not require specific comment periods for rulemaking.
Regulatory Analysis
Executive Order 12866 established the requirement that, within the
extent permitted by law, a Federal regulatory action may be undertaken
only if the potential benefits to society for the regulation outweigh
the potential costs to society. In response to this requirement, and in
accordance with Department of Transportation policies and procedures,
the FAA has estimated the anticipated benefits and costs of this
rulemaking action.
The FAA has determined that this rule is not a ``significant
rulemaking action'', as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review). The anticipated costs and benefits associated
with this rule are summarized below. (A more detailed discussion of
costs and benefits is contained in the full regulatory evaluation
placed in the docket for this rule.)
Costs
The rule does not impose any additional costs on either part 121
air carrier operators or the flying public. The rule allows certain
training practices that the FAA has determined to be safe and efficient
methods for training pilots, and it clarifies other portions of
appendix H. Thus, the rule does not impose any additional costs because
it permits operators to use the least costly methods of training while
maintaining an equivalent level of safety for the flying public. Since
current training practices could be maintained to current standards
under the rule, there is no reduction in aviation safety imposed on the
flying public.
Potential Cost-Relief Benefits
The rule generates potential cost savings benefits estimated at
$21.6 million, in 1992 dollars, over the next 10 years (or $13.3
million, discounted, using a 7.0 percent rate of interest). These
potential cost savings benefits take the form of increased operational
efficiency (qualitative) and cost savings (quantitative) to those part
121 operators engaged in initial simulator training, in accordance with
appendix H.
The potential cost savings benefits of the rule represent the
difference between the costs incurred currently by part 121 air
carriers for initial training and checking of SIC pilots and the costs
that incurred from the proposal becoming a rule. Currently, certain
requirements for initial training and checking of SIC pilots that are
not performed in a Level D simulator must be performed in the aircraft.
Under the rule, those requirements that are performed in the aircraft
in lieu of a Level D simulator can be performed in a Level C simulator.
The costs of operating the aircraft for those requirements above the
costs of operating the less expensive simulator for those same
requirements is the estimated benefit of this rule.
In an effort to derive a cost-relief estimate associated with this
rule, several part 121 air carriers were contacted. These air carriers
provided the agency with estimated aircraft operating costs per hour,
the time needed to train and check pilots for those requirements that,
under the present rule, cannot be performed in a Level C simulator, and
the number of pilots that it expects to train in the next 10 years.
Potential Operational Efficiency Benefits
The potential benefits of the rule would be generated in the form
of increased operational efficiency. In the full regulatory evaluation
placed in the docket, these potential efficiency benefits are presented
qualitatively. These benefits are difficult to estimate quantitatively
due, at present, to the lack of available cost information.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily and
disproportionately burdened by government regulations. The RFA requires
government agencies to determine whether rules will have ``a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities''
and, in cases where they will, conduct a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis.
According to FAA Order 2100.14A (Regulatory Flexibility and
Guidance), a substantial number of small entities is
[[Page 30732]]
defined as a number which is not less than eleven and which is more
than one-third of the small entities subject to a proposed or existing
rule. A significant economic impact on a small entity is an annualized
net compliance cost which, when adjusted for inflation, equals or
exceeds the significant cost threshold for the entity type under
review.
The entities that potentially would be affected by the rule are
small part 121 operators that own, but do not necessarily operate, nine
or fewer aircraft. As discussed in the cost section of this evaluation
summary, the rule would not impose any costs on these operators because
it is cost-relieving in nature. Therefore, the rule would not impose a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small aircraft
operators.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The rule would have little, if any, impact on the competitive
posture of either U.S. carriers doing business in foreign countries or
foreign carriers doing business in the United States. This assessment
is based on the fact that the rule would not impose any cost on part
121 operators because it is cost-relieving in nature. These operators
do not compete directly with air carriers engaged in foreign operations
(part 129).
Federalism Implications
The regulations contained herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12866, it is determined that this rule
would not have federalism implications requiring the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
International Civil Aviation Organization and Joint Aviation
Regulations
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with ICAO
Standards and Recommended Practices (SARP) to the maximum extent
practicable. The FAA is not aware of, and did not receive any comments
indicating any differences that this rule will present.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains no information collection requests requiring
approval of the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507 (d)).
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and based on the
findings in the Regulatory Flexibility Determination and the
International Trade Impact Analysis, the FAA has determined that this
regulation is not significant under Executive Order 12866. 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. This rule is not
considered significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034, February 26, 1979).
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aircraft, Federal Aviation Administration.
The Rule
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 121 as follows:
PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL
OPERATIONS
1. 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.
2. Appendix H is amended by replacing the words ``Phase I'',
``Phase II'', and ``Phase III'' with the words ``Level B'', ``Level
C'', and ``Level D'' respectively, wherever they appear; by replacing
the words ``Phase I, II, and III'' with the words ``Level B, C, and
D,'' wherever they appear; by replacing the words ``Phase II or III''
with the words ``Level C or D'', wherever they appear; by replacing the
words ``Phase I, II, or III'' with the words ``Level B, C, or D''.
3. The section entitled ``Advanced Simulation Training Program'' in
Appendix H is amended by removing paragraph 7 and revising paragraph 3
to read as follows:
Appendix H to Part 121--Advanced Simulation Plan
* * * * *
Advanced Simulation Training Program
* * * * *
3. Documentation that each instructor and check airman has
served for at least 1 year in that capacity in a certificate
holder's approved program or has served for at least 1 year as a
pilot in command or second in command in an airplane of the group in
which that pilot is instructing or checking.
* * * * *
4. Appendix H, ``Phase II, Training and Checking Permitted'' is
amended by revising the title and paragraph 2 and by adding paragraphs
3 and 4 as follows:
Level C
Training and Checking Permitted
1. * * *
2. Upgrade to pilot-in-command training and the certification
check when the pilot--
a. Has previously qualified as second in command in the
equipment to which the pilot is upgrading;
b. Has at least 500 hours of actual flight time while serving as
second in command in an airplane of the same group; and
c. Is currently serving as second in command in an airplane in
this same group.
3. Initial pilot-in-command training and the certification check
when the pilot--
a. Is currently serving as second in command in an airplane of
the same group;
b. Has a minimum of 2,500 flight hours as second in command in
an airplane of the same group; and
c. Has served as second in command on at least two airplanes of
the same group.
4. For all second-in-command pilot applicants who meet the
aeronautical experience requirements of Sec. 61.155 of this chapter
in the airplane, the initial and upgrade training and checking
required by this part, and the certification check requirements of
Sec. 61.157 of this chapter.
5. Appendix H, ``Phase IIA, Interim Simulator Upgrade Plan for Part
121 Operators'' is removed in its entirety.
Issued in Washington, DC., on May 30, 1996.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-14082 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.