issue-1996-06-13•Federal Register final rules — 1996-06-13
Federal Register final rules — 1996-06-13
issue-1996-06-13Federal Register final rules — 1996-06-13Regulation
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. 96-15067 Rotorcraft Regulatory Changes Based on European Joint Aviation Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15067]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Parts 27 and 29
[Docket No. 28008; Amendment No. 27-33, 29-40]
RIN 2120-AF65
Rotorcraft Regulatory Changes Based on European Joint Aviation
Requirements
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to the final rule
published in the Federal Register on May 10, 1996; (61 FR 21904). The
final rule amended the airworthiness standards for normal and transport
category rotorcraft.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 8, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carroll Wright, (817) 225-5120.
Correction of Publication
In rule document 96-11493, on page 21904, in the issue of Friday,
May 10, 1996, make the following correction:
On page 21904, in the first column, in the heading, Amendment ``No.
29-39]'', should read ``No. 29-40]''.
Issued in Washington, DC on June 7, 1996.
Joseph A. Conte,
Acting Assistant Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 96-15067 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15066 Airworthiness Standards; Transport Category Rotorcraft Performance
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15066]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 29
[Docket No. 24802; Amendment No. 29-39]
RIN 2120-AB36
Airworthiness Standards; Transport Category Rotorcraft
Performance
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to the final rule
published in the Federal Register on May 10, 1996 (61 FR 21894). The
final rule adopted new and revised airworthiness standards for the
performance of transport category rotorcraft.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T.E. Archer, (817) 222-5126.
Correction of Publication
In rule document 96-11494, on page 21894, in the issue of Friday,
May 10, 1996, make the following correction:
On page 21894, in the first column, in the heading, Amendment ``No.
20-40]'' should read ``No. 29-39]''.
Issued in Washington, DC on June 7, 1996.
Joseph A. Conte,
Acting Assistant Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 96-15066 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15063 Establishment of Federal Colored Airway B-9; FL
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15063]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ASO-20]
Establishment of Federal Colored Airway B-9; FL
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule establishes a Colored Federal Airway, Blue-9 (B-9),
from the DEEDS Intersection to the Marathon Nondirectional Beacon
(NDB), FL. The establishment of B-9 will enhance the management of air
traffic and accommodate the users of that airspace.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia P. Crawford, 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:
History
On February 6, 1996, the FAA proposed to amend Title 14 of the Code
of Regulations part 71 (14 CFR part 71) to establish a Colored Federal
Airway, B-9, in Florida (61 FR 04380). Interested parties were invited
by the FAA to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting
written comments on the proposal. Except for editorial changes, this
amendment is the same as proposed in the notice. Colored Federal
airways are published in paragraph 6009(d) of FAA Order 7400.9C dated
August 17, 1995, and 95-ASO-20 2 effective September 16, 1995, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Colored Federal airway
listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 establishes a new Colored Federal
Airway, B-9, from the DEEDS Intersection to the Marathon NDB, FL. This
action will enhance the management of air traffic and accommodate the
users of that airspace.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
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 the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6009(b)--Blue Federal Airways
* * * * *
B-9 [New]
From INT Pahokee, FL, 211 deg. and Fort Myers, FL, 138 deg. radials;
Marathon, FL.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 4, 1996.
Harold W. Becker,
Acting Program Director for Air Traffic Airspace Management.
[FR Doc. 96-15063 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15062 Alteration of Jet Routes J-86 and J-92
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29938-29939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15062]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 93-AWP-4]
Alteration of Jet Routes J-86 and J-92
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule extends Jet Route 86 (J-86) from the Boulder City,
NV, Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation
(VORTAC) to the Beatty, NV, VORTAC. This action also realigns J-92
direct from the Boulder City VORTAC to the Beattty VORTAC. The FAA is
taking this action to enhance traffic flows and reduce controllers'
workload.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, August 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bill Nelson, 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:
History
On June 9, 1993, the FAA proposed to amend Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations part 71 (14 CFR part 71) to alter J-86 and J-92 (58
FR 32313). 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. Except
for editorial changes, this amendment is the same as that proposed in
the notice. Jet Routes are published in paragraph 2004 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 jet routes listed in
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 extends J-86 from the Boulder
City, NV, VORTAC to the Beatty, NV, VORTAC. Extending J-86 will enable
air traffic controllers to provide pilots with an alternate route from
the Boulder City VORTAC to the Beatty VORTAC during the times
Restricted Area 4808S is in use. This action also realigns J-92 direct
from the Boulder City VORTAC to the Beatty VORTAC, providing a route
that is normally requested by pilots. This action will enhance the
traffic flow and reduce the controllers' workload.
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
[[Page 29939]]
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 2004--Jet Routes
* * * * *
J-86 [Revised]
From Beatty, NV; INT Beatty 131 deg. and Boulder City, NV,
284 deg. radials; Boulder City; Peach Springs, AZ; Winslow, AZ; El
Paso, TX; Fort Stockton, TX; Junction, TX; Austin, TX; Humble, TX;
Leeville, LA; INT Leeville 104 deg. and Sarasota, FL, 286 deg.
radials; Sarasota; INT Sarasota 103 deg. and La Belle, FL, 313 deg.
radials; La Belle; to Miami, FL.
* * * * *
J-92 [Revised]
From Klamath Falls, OR; via Mustang, NV, Coaldale, NV; Beatty,
NV; Boulder City, NV; Drake, AZ; Phoenix, AZ; Stanfield, AZ; INT of
Stanfield 145 deg. and Tucson, AZ, 300 deg. radials; Tucson; to the
INT of Tucson 182 deg. radial and the United States/Mexican Border.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 5, 1996.
Harold W. Becker,
Acting Program Director for Air Traffic Airspace Management.
[FR Doc. 96-15062 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15061 Alteration of V-99, V-451 and J-62
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29937-29938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15061]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ANE-35]
Alteration of V-99, V-451 and J-62
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule alters Federal Airways V-99, V-451, and Jet Route 62
(J-62) in the states of Massachusetts and Connecticut. Specific
portions of both airways and the jet route, in the above mentioned
states, are no longer necessary for navigation and are being revoked.
Removing these obsolete segments will eliminate clutter on aeronautical
charts.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, August 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia P. Crawford, 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.
[[Page 29938]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On December 21, 1995, the FAA proposed to amend Title 14 of the
Code of Federal Regulations part 71 (14 CFR part 71) to alter V-99, V-
451, and J-62 (60 FR 66181). 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. Except for editorial changes, this amendment is
the same as that proposed in the notice. Jet Routes and Domestic Very
High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways are
published in paragraphs 2004 and 6010(a), respectively, 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 jet route and airways
listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 alters V-99, V-451, and J-62.
Specific portions of both the airways and the jet route are no longer
necessary for navigation and are being revoked. The airspace
designation for V-99 will be revoked between Hartford, CT, and the
GRAYM intersection; V-451 will be revoked between Groton, CT, and the
SEEDY intersection; and J-62 will be revoked east of the Nantucket, CT,
VOR. Removing these obsolete segments will eliminate clutter on
aeronautical charts.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
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 the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 2004--Jet Routes
* * * * *
J-62 [Revised]
From Robbinsville, NJ; to Nantucket, MA.
* * * * *
Paragraph 6010(a)--Domestic VOR Federal Airways
* * * * *
V-99 [Revised]
From LaGuardia, NY, via INT LaGuardia 043 deg. and Hartford, CT,
245 deg. radials; Hartford.
* * * * *
V-451 [Revised]
From LaGuardia, NY; INT LaGuardia 063 deg. and Hampton, NY, 289 deg.
radials; INT Hampton 289 deg. and Calverton, NY, 044 deg. radials;
INT Calverton 044 deg. and Groton, CT, 243 deg. radials; Groton.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 5, 1996.
Harold W. Becker,
Acting Program Director for Air Traffic Airspace Management.
[FR Doc. 96-15061 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15058 Pacific Halibut Fisheries; 1996 Halibut Landing Report No. 3
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15058]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 301
[Docket No. 960111003-6068-03; I.D. 060796A]
Pacific Halibut Fisheries; 1996 Halibut Landing Report No. 3
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Inseason action.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, on behalf of
the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), publishes these
inseason actions pursuant to IPHC regulations approved by the U.S.
Government to govern the Pacific halibut fishery. This action is
intended to enhance the conservation of the Pacific halibut stock.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Southern Oregon Sport Halibut Season: 11:59 p.m.,
Pacific Daylight Time, June 1, 1996, until June 2, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Pennoyer, 907-586-7221; William
W. Stelle, Jr., 206-526-6140; or Donald McCaughran, 206-634-1838.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The IPHC, under the Convention between the
United States of America and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut
Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (signed at Ottawa,
Ontario, on March 2, 1953), as amended by a Protocol Amending the
Convention (signed at Washington, DC, on March 29, 1979), has issued
this inseason action pursuant to IPHC regulations governing the Pacific
halibut fishery. The regulations have been approved by NMFS (60 FR
14651, March 20, 1995, and amended at 61 FR 11337, March 20, 1996). On
behalf of the IPHC, this inseason action is published in the Federal
Register to provide additional notice of its effectiveness, and to
inform persons subject to the inseason action of the restrictions and
requirements established therein.
Inseason Action
1996 Halibut Landing Report No. 3
Southern Oregon Sport Halibut Season to Close June 1
The preliminary catch estimate for the 1996 sport halibut fishery
between the Florence North Jetty (Siuslaw River, 44 deg.01 deg.08'' N.
lat.) and the California border (42 deg.00 deg.00 N. lat.) indicates
the 5,999 lb (2.72 metric tons (mt)) catch limit will be reached on
June 1. Therefore, the sport halibut fishery in this area will close at
11:59 p.m. on June 1.
Sport fishing for Pacific halibut will reopen on June 2 and remain
open through August 1, 7 days a week, only in the area inside the 30-
fathom curve nearest to the coastline as plotted on National Ocean
Service charts numbered 18520, 18580, and 18600 from the Florence North
Jetty (Siuslaw River) to the California border, or until 1,500 lb (.68
mt) are estimated to have been taken (except that any poundage
remaining unharvested after the earlier season will be added to this
season) and the season is closed by the IPHC, whichever occurs first.
The daily bag limit remains two halibut per person, one with a minimum
overall size limit of 32 inches (81.28 centimeters (cm)) and the second
with a minimum overall size limit of 50 inches (127.0 cm).
Dated: June 7, 1996.
Richard H. Schaefer,
Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-15058 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15052 Personal Protective Equipment for Shipyard Employment (PPE)
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29957-29958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15052]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1915
[Docket No. S-045]
RIN 1218-AA74 (AB06)
Personal Protective Equipment for Shipyard Employment (PPE)
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of
Labor.
Action: Final Rule; corrections.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: This document makes corrections to the final rule on Personal
Protective Equipment for Shipyard Employment, which was published in
the Federal Register on May 24, 1996 at 61 FR 26322.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Section 1915.152(b) will not become effective until an
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number is received and
displayed for this ``collection of information'' in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. ANNE C. CYR, Acting Director,
Office of Information, Division of Consumer Affairs, Room N-3647,
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.
20210; Telephone (202) 219-8151.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document contains corrections to the
final rule for Personal Protective Equipment for Shipyard Employment,
which was published on May 24, 1996 (61 FR 26322). As published, the
final rule contained an error in the placement of Note 1 to
Sec. 1915.152(b) in the regulatory text of the final rule.
Authority: This document was prepared under the direction of
Joseph A. Dear, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety
and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20210.
Signed at Washington, DC this 10th day of June, 1996.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
Accordingly, the publication on May 24, 1996 of Personal Protective
Equipment for Shipyard Employment (61 FR 26322) is hereby corrected as
set forth below.
Sec. 1915.152 [Corrected]
1. On page 26352, in the third column, paragraph (b) is corrected
to read:
* * * * *
(b) Hazard assessment and equipment. The employer shall assess its
work activity to determine whether there are hazards present, or likely
to be present, which necessitate the employee's use of PPE. If such
hazards are present, or likely to be present, the employer shall:
(1) Select the type of PPE that will protect the affected employee
from the hazards identified in the occupational hazard assessment;
(2) Communicate selection decisions to affected employees;
(3) Select PPE that properly fits each affected employee; and
(4) Verify that the required occupational hazard assessment has
been performed through a document that contains the following
information: occupation, the date(s) of the hazard assessment, and the
name of the person performing the hazard assessment.
Note 1 to paragraph (b): A hazard assessment conducted according
to the trade or occupation of affected employees will be considered
to comply with paragraph (b) of this section, if the assessment
addresses any PPE-related hazards to which employees are exposed in
the course of their work activities.
Note 2 to paragraph (b): Non-mandatory Appendix A to this
subpart contains examples of procedures that will comply
[[Page 29958]]
with the requirement for an occupational hazard assessment.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-15052 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15046 Reorganization of Coast Guard Areas, Districts, and Marine Inspection and Captain of the Port Zones
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29958-29959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15046]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 3
[CGD 96-025]
RIN 2115-AF32
Reorganization of Coast Guard Areas, Districts, and Marine
Inspection and Captain of the Port Zones
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To conform with an internal reorganization of its field
command structure, the Coast Guard is amending the descriptions of the
Second and Eighth Coast Guard District boundaries and redesignating
several Marine Inspection and Captain of the Port Zones. In addition,
the Coast Guard is amending the description of the location of the
Atlantic Area, Pacific Area, and Eleventh Coast Guard District offices.
These changes are administrative and will not impact the type or level
of Coast Guard services performed.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective June 13, 1996, except for
Sec. 3.04-1(a) which is effective June 14, 1996, and Sec. 3.04-3(a)
which is effective June 28, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Unless otherwise indicated, documents referred to in the
preamble are available for inspection or copying at the Office of the
Executive Secretary, Marine Safety Council (G-LRS/3406), U.S. Coast
Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Room 3406, Washington, DC
20593-0001 between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 267-1477.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Maureen Melton, Plans and Policy Division (G-CPP), U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone Number is (202) 267-2299.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Purpose
Atlantic Area and Pacific Area
During 1996, the Coast Guard reorganized the Area field command and
control structures and relocated the Atlantic Area office from New York
City, to Portsmouth, VA, and relocated the Eleventh District office
from Long Beach, CA, to Alameda, CA. The Atlantic and Pacific Area
Commanders also serve as the Fifth and Eleventh District Commanders,
respectively. The separate authorities and responsibilities of the Area
Commanders and District Commanders are unaffected by the consolidated
of their command staffs.
Second District--Merger Into the Eighth District
Previously, the Second Coast Guard District and Eighth District
exercised jurisdiction in their respective regions. In 1996, the Coast
Guard realigned its field command and control structure in the Gulf of
Mexico and Midwestern regions through the merger of the Second District
into the Eighth District. The Second District has been disestablished
and the Eighth District boundaries have been expanded to include the
prior Second District area of responsibilities. This realignment
enables more efficient internal management and enhances mission
performance in the affected region. The merger streamlined command and
control of activities within the combined Second and Eighth District
regions. The Eighth District Commander now exercises authority over the
combined geographic region. The merger will not adversely affect the
public, since there will be no change in Coast Guard operational assets
or Coast Guard services in the respective regions. The descriptions of
Marine Inspection and Captain of the Port Zones which belonged to the
Second District are being renumbered to reflect their realignment with
the Eighth District.
Discussion of Changes
Sec. 3.01-1. This section, describing generally the Area
Commanders' responsibilities, is revised to reflect the fact that the
Atlantic Area Commander also serves as Fifth District Commander and the
Pacific Area Commander also serves as the Eleventh District Commander.
Sec. 3.04-1. This section, describing the Area offices and
jurisdictions, is revised to reflect the relocation of the Atlantic Are
office from New York, NY to Portsmouth, VA and eliminates reference to
the Second Coast Guard District which was disestablished with its
merger into the Eighth District. The section is also revised to
correctly reflect the location of the Pacific Area office as Alameda,
CA and to reflect relocation of Eleventh District office from Long
Beach, CA to Alameda, CA.
Sec. 3.10-1. This section, describing the Second District, is
removed to conform with the disestablishment of the Second District as
a result of its merger into the Eighth District.
Sec. 3.10-10 through 03.10-50. These sections, describing the six
Marine Inspection and Captain of the Port Zones within the prior Second
District, are redesignated under Subpart 3.40 to conform with the
reassignment of these MI and COTP zones to Eighth District as a result
of the merger of the Second District into the Eighth District.
Sec. 3.40-1. This section, describing the Eighth District, is
revised to describe its new boundaries which incorporate the prior
Second District boundaries as a result of the merger of the Second
District into the Eighth District.
The current CFR descriptions do not reflect the reorganizations in
the Coast Guard Areas, affected Coast Guard District, and the
realignment of Marine Inspection (MI) and Captain of the Port (COTP)
Zones. Since this is a matter relating to agency organization,
procedure, and management, it is excluded from the requirements of
section 553(b)(3)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551
et seq.) for a notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment. These
changes are administrative and will not impact the type of level of
Coast Guard services performed. Further, since the rule has no
substantial effect on service to the public, good cause exists under 5
U.S.C. 553(d) to make the rule effective less than 30 days after
publication.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that
order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and
procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT)(44 FR 11040;
February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this
rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph
10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
This rule merely implements administrative changes within the Coast
Guard structure. Coast Guard services to the public will not be
changed.
Collection of Information
This rule contains no collection-of-information requirements under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
[[Page 29959]]
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that
this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule
and concluded that, under paragraph 2.B.2 of Commandant Instruction
M16475.1B, as revised by 59 FR 38654, July 29, 1994, this rule is
categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. This
rule is an administrative change under paragraph 2.B.2.1, and will not
impact the environment. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is
available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 3
Organization and functions (Government Agencies).
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 3 as follows:
PART 3--COAST GUARD AREAS, DISTRICTS, MARINE INSPECTION ZONES, AND
CAPTAIN OF THE PORT ZONES
1. The authority citation for part 3 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 14 U.S.C. 633; 49 CFR 1.45, 1.46.
2. In Sec. 3.01-1, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 3.01-1 General description.
* * * * *
(b) The two Coast Guard Areas are the Atlantic Area (see Sec. 3.04-
1) and the Pacific Area (see Sec. 3.04-3). The Coast Guard Area
Commander is in command of a Coast Guard Area; the offices are referred
to as a Coast Guard Area Office. The office of the Commander, Atlantic
Area, is located in the Fifth Coast Guard District and the Commander,
Atlantic Area, also serves as the Fifth District Commander. The office
of the Commander, Pacific Area, is located in the Eleventh Coast Guard
District and the Commander, Pacific Area, also serves as the Eleventh
District Commander. Area Commanders have the responsibility of
determining when operational matters require the coordination of forces
and facilities of more than one district.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 3.04-1, paragraph (a) is revised, and in paragraph (b),
the word ``Second'' is removed to read as follows:
Sec. 3.04-1 Atlantic Area.
(a) The Area Office is in Portsmouth, VA.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 3.04-3, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 3.04-3 Pacific Area.
(a) The Area Office is in Alameda, CA.
* * * * *
Subpart 3.10--Second Coast Guard District [Heading Removed]
Sec. 3.10-1 [Removed]; Sec. 3.10-10 [Redesignated as Sec. 3.40-40];
Sec. 3.10-5 [Redesignated as Sec. 3.40-45]; Sec. 3.10-30 [Redesignated
as Sec. 3.40-50]; Sec. 3.10-35 [Redesignated as Sec. 3.40-55];
Sec. 3.10-40 [Redesignated as Sec. 3.40-60]; and Sec. 3.10-50
[Redesignated as Sec. 3.40-65]
5. In Subpart 3.10, the subpart heading and Sec. 3.10-1 are
removed; Sec. 3.10-10 is redesignated as Sec. 3.40-40; Sec. 3.10-15 is
redesignated as Sec. 3.40-45; Sec. 3.10-30 is redesignated as
Sec. 3.40-50; Sec. 3.10-35 is redesignated as Sec. 3.40-55; Sec. 3.10-
40 is redesignated as Sec. 3.40-60; and Sec. 3.10-50 is redesignated as
Sec. 3.40-65.
6. In Sec. 3.40-1, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 3.40-1 Eighth district.
* * * * *
(b) The Eighth Coast Guard District is comprised of North Dakota,
South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Iowa, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri,
Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico,
Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama; that part of Pennsylvania
south of 41 deg. N. latitude and west of 79 deg. W. longitude; those
parts of Ohio and Indiana south of 41 deg. N. latitude; Illinois,
except that part north of 41 deg. N. latitude and east of 90 deg. W.
longitude; that part of Wisconsin south of 46 deg.20' N. latitude and
west of 90 deg. W. longitude; that part of Minnesota south of
46 deg.20' N. latitude; those parts of Florida and Georgia west of a
line starting at the Florida coast at 83 deg.50' W. longitude; thence
northerly to 30 deg.15' N. latitude, 83 deg.50' W. longitude; thence
due west to 30 deg.15' N. latitude, 84 deg.45' W. longitude; thence due
north to the southern bank of the Jim Woodruff Reservoir at 84 deg.45'
W. longitude; thence northeasterly along the eastern bank of the Jim
Woodruff Reservoir and northerly along the eastern bank of the Flint
River to Montezuma, GA.; thence northwesterly to West Point, GA.; and
the Gulf of Mexico area west of a line bearing 199 T. from the
intersection of the Florida coast at 83 deg.50' W. longitude (the
coastal end of the Seventh and Eighth Coast Guard District land
boundary.) [DATUM NAD83]
13. In Sec. 3.55-1, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
3.55-1 Eleventh District.
(a) The District Office is in Alameda, California.
* * * * *
Dated: May 28, 1996.
Kent H. Williams,
Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Chief of Staff.
[FR Doc. 96-15046 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15045 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Nacote Creek, NJ
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29959-29960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15045]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD05-94-065]
RIN 2115-AE47
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Nacote Creek, NJ
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: At the request of the New Jersey Department of Transportation
(NJDOT), the Coast Guard is changing the regulations governing the
operation of the Route 9 Bridge across Nacote Creek, mile 1.5, in
Smithville, Atlantic County, New Jersey. The change will require the
Route 9 Bridge to open on signal except from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., when a
two hour advance notice for openings will be required. This change
should help relieve the bridge owner of the burden of having a bridge
tender constantly available at times when there are few or no requests
for openings, while still providing for the needs of navigation.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on July 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ann B. Deaton, Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, at
(804) 398-6222.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory History
On December 20, 1995, the Coast Guard published a notice of
proposed rulemaking entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulations, Nacote
Creek, New Jersey'' in the Federal Register (60 FR 65613). The Coast
Guard received one letter commenting on the notice of proposed
rulemaking. No public hearing was requested, and none was held.
Background and Purpose
The Route 9 Bridge across Nacote Creek, mile 1.5, at Smithville,
Atlantic
[[Page 29960]]
County, NJ, has a vertical clearance of 5' above mean high water (MHW)
and 8' above mean low water (MLW) in the closed position. The current
regulations require the bridge to open on signal at all times.
Review of the bridge logs provided by NJDOT revealed that between
11 p.m. and 7 a.m., there were limited requests for bridge openings for
the years 1992, 1993 and 1994. NJDOT is seeking relief from the
requirement that a bridge tender be present during the hours of 11 p.m.
and 7 a.m. when there are minimal requests for openings. The NJDOT
requested a permanent change to the regulations governing operation of
the Route 9 Bridge to require the draw to open on signal, except from
11 p.m. to 7 a.m., which will require a two hour advance notice. At all
other times the bridge will open on signal. The bridge tenders will be
on call to open the draw when the advance notice is given. A 24 hour
special telephone number will be posted on the bridge and maintained by
the NJDOT.
Accordingly, a new provision allowing the draw of the Route 9
bridge, at mile 1.5, to remain closed from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. unless two
hours advance notice is given will be designated as paragraph (a). The
current provision allowing the draw of the Atlantic County (Rte. 575)
bridge, at mile 3.5, to remain closed unless eight hours advance notice
is given will be designated as paragraph (b). A general provision
requiring the passage of Federal, State, and local government vessels
used for public safety through all drawbridges is published at 33 CFR
117.31, and is no longer required to be published for each waterway.
Therefore, this change will remove the provision requiring passage of
public vessels from section 117.732.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
The Coast Guard received one comment from the New Jersey State
Historic Preservation office which offered no objection to the Coast
Guard's proposed rulemaking. Therefore, no changes to the proposed rule
were made.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It
has been exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget
under that order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies
and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;
February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this
rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation, under
paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is
unnecessary. This conclusion is based on the fact that the rule will
not prevent mariners from passing through the Route 9 Bridge but will
only require mariners to provide two hours advance notice from 11 p.m.
to 7 a.m. Removal of the public vessel provision from this rule will
have no impact since this provision is included at 33 CFR 117.31.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard considered whether this rule will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. ``Small
entities'' include independently owned and operated small businesses
that are not dominant in their fields and that otherwise qualify as
``small business concerns'' under section 3 of the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. 632). Therefore, for the reasons set out under Regulatory
Evaluation, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Collection of Information
This rule contains no collection of information requirements under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Federalism Assessment
The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under the principles and
criteria in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that this rule
does not raise sufficient federalism implications to warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule
and concluded that, under paragraph 2.B.2.e.(32)(e) of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1B (as amended, 59 FR 38654, 29 July 1994), this
rule is categorically excluded from further environmental
documentation.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
Regulations
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 117 as follows:
PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 117 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section
117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106
Stat. 5039.
2. Section 117.732 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 117.732 Nacote Creek.
(a) The Route 9 bridge, mile 1.5, shall open on signal, except that
from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., the draw shall open if at least two hours
notice is given.
(b) The draw of the Atlantic County (Rte. 575) bridge, mile 3.5 at
Port Republic, shall open on signal if at least eight hours notice is
given.
Dated: May 10, 1996.
W.J. Ecker,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 96-15045 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15022 Rule Concerning Disclosures Regarding Energy Consumption and Water use of Certain Home Appliances and Other Products Required Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (``Appliance Labeling Rule'')
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29939-29940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15022]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 305
Rule Concerning Disclosures Regarding Energy Consumption and
Water use of Certain Home Appliances and Other Products Required Under
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (``Appliance Labeling Rule'')
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission amends its Appliance Labeling
Rule by publishing new ranges of comparability to be used on required
labels for clothes washers.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 11, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Mills, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Federal Trade
Commission, Washington, DC 20580 (202-326-3035).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 324 of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 (``EPCA'') \1\ requires the Federal Trade
Commission (``Commission'') to consider labeling rules for the
disclosure of estimated annual energy cost or alternative energy
consumption information for at least thirteen categories of appliances.
Clothes washers are included in those categories. The statute also
requires the Department of Energy (``DOE'') to develop test procedures
that measure how much energy the appliances use. In addition, DOE is
required to determine the representative average cost a consumer pays
for the different types of energy available.
\1\ 42 U.S.C. 6294
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 19, 1979, the Commission issued a final rule covering
seven of the thirteen appliance categories that were then covered by
DOE test procedures: refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, freezers,
dishwashers, water heaters, clothes washers, room air conditioners and
furnaces (this category includes boilers).\2\ The Commission has
extended the coverage of the Appliance Labeling Rule (''Rule'') four
times since it originally issued the Rule: in 1987 (central air
conditioners, heat pumps, and pulse combustion and condensing
furnaces); \3\ 1989 (fluorescent lamp ballasts); \4\ 1993 (certain
plumbing products \5\), and 1994 (certain lighting products \6\). On
July 1, 1994, the Commission amended the Rule to make certain
improvements, including making the label format more ``user-friendly,''
changing the energy usage descriptors required on labels, and adopting
new product sub-categories for ranges of comparability purposes.\7\ In
addition to the new format, which applies to labels for all products,
the changes for clothes washer labels are the requirement to disclose
kilowatt-hour use per year (instead of estimated annual operating cost)
for the primary energy usage disclosure and ranges of comparability,
and the addition of the ``front-loading'' and ``top-loading'' sub-
categories to the ``standard'' and ``compact'' categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 44 FR 66466, 16 CFR Part 305 (Nov. 19, 1979). The Statement
of Basis and Purpose for the final Rule describes the reasons the
Commission determined not to cover the other categories of covered
products. Id. at 66467-69.
\3\ 52 FR 46888 (Dec. 10, 1987).
\4\ 54 FR 28031 (July 5, 1989).
\5\ 58 FR 54955 (Oct. 25, 1993).
\6\59 FR 25176 (May 13, 1994).
\7\ 59 FR 34014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 305.8(b) of the Rule requires manufacturers, after filing
an initial report, to report annually by specified dates for each
product type.\8\ These reports, which are to assist the Commission in
preparing the ranges of comparability, contain the estimated annual
energy consumption or energy efficiency ratings for the appliances
derived from tests performed pursuant to the DOE test procedures.
Because manufacturers regularly add new models to their lines, improve
existing models, and drop others, the data base from which the ranges
of comparability are calculated is constantly changing. To keep the
required information consistent with these changes, under Section
305.10 of the Rule of Commission will publish new ranges (but not more
often than annually) if an analysis of the new information indicates
that the upper or lower limits of the ranges have changed by more than
15%. Otherwise, the Commission will publish a statement that the prior
ranges remain in effect for the next year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Reports for clothes washers are due March 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The annual submissions of data for clothes washers have been made
and have been analyzed by the Commission. The Commission has found a
significant number of the upper and lower limits of the ranges have
changed by more than 15%. Accordingly, the Commission is publishing new
ranges of comparability for the clothes washer category. These ranges
will supersede the current ranges for clothes washers, which were
published on May 25, 1995.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 60 FR 27690.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission revises Appendix
F of its Appliance Labeling Rule by publishing the following ranges of
comparability for use in required disclosures (including labeling) for
clothes washers manufactured on or after September 11, 1996. In
addition, as of this effective date, the disclosures of estimated
annual operating cost required at the bottom of the EnergyGuide for
clothes washers must be based on the 1996 Representative Average Unit
Costs of Energy for electricity (8.6 cents per kilowatt-hour) and
natural gas (62.6 cents per therm) that were published by
[[Page 29940]]
DOE on January 19, 1996,\10\ and by the Commission on February 14,
1996.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 61 FR 1366.
\11\ 61 FR 5679.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects of 16 CFR Part 305
Advertising, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Labeling,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 16 CFR Part 305 is amended as follows:
PART 305--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 305 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6294.
2. Appendix F to Part 305 is revised to read as follows:
Appendix F to Part 305--Clothes Washers
Range Information
``Compact'' includes all household clothes washers with a tub
capacity of less than 1.6 cu. ft. or 13 gallons of water.
``Standard'' includes all household clothes washers with a tub
capacity of 1.6 cu. ft. or 13 gallons of water or more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range of
estimated annual
energy
Capacity consumption (kWh/
yr.)
-----------------
Low High
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compact:
Top Loading......................................... 607 1061
Front Loading....................................... (*) (*)
Standard:
Top Loading......................................... 616 1335
Front Loading....................................... 241 280
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*) No data submitted.
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-15022 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14987 Increased Assessment Rate for Domestically Produced Peanuts Handled By Persons Not Subject to Peanut Marketing Agreement No. 146 and for Marketing Agreement No. 146 Regulating the Quality of Domestically Produced Peanuts
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29926-29928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14987]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Parts 997 and 998
[Docket No. FV96-998-1IFR]
Increased Assessment Rate for Domestically Produced Peanuts
Handled By Persons Not Subject to Peanut Marketing Agreement No. 146
and for Marketing Agreement No. 146 Regulating the Quality of
Domestically Produced Peanuts
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Interim final rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This interim final rule increases the administrative
assessment rate under Marketing Agreement 146 (agreement) for the 1995-
96 crop year. Authorization of the increase in the administrative
assessment rate enables the Peanut Administrative Committee (Committee)
to collect sufficient funds to pay expenses for the remainder of the
year. Funds to administer this program are derived from assessments on
handlers who have signed the agreement. Public Law 103-66 requires the
Department of Agriculture (Department) to impose an administrative
assessment on farmers stock peanuts received or acquired by handlers
who are not signatory (non-signatory handlers) to the agreement.
Therefore, this same increase in the assessment rate under the
agreement will apply to all non-signatory handlers.
DATES: Effective July 1, 1995, through June 30, 1996. Comments received
by July 15, 1996, will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this rule. Comments must be sent in triplicate to the Docket
Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room
2523-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456, FAX 202-720-5698. Comments should
reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue
of the Federal Register and will be available for public inspection in
the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Sue Clark, Marketing Order
Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O.
Box 96456, room 2523-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456, telephone 202-720-
9918, FAX 202-720-5698, or William G. Pimental, Southeast Marketing
Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 2276,
Winter Haven, FL 33883-2276, telephone 941-299-4770, FAX 941-299-5169.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued pursuant to the
requirements of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), and as further amended December 12, 1989,
hereinafter referred to as the ``Act''; Pub. L. 101-220, section 4(1),
(2), 103 Stat. 1878, December 12, 1989; Pub. L. 103-66, section
8b(b)(1), 107 Stat. 312, August 10, 1993; and under Marketing Agreement
146 (7 CFR part 998) regulating the quality of domestically produced
peanuts.
The Department is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive
Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform. The Department established a 1995-96 crop year
assessment rate applicable to non-signatory and signatory handlers
effective July 1, 1995, through June 30, 1996. This rule increases the
administrative assessment rates for the crop year which began July 1,
1995. Farmers' stock peanuts received or acquired by non-signatory
handlers and farmers' stock peanuts received or acquired by handlers
signatory to the agreement, other than from those described in
Secs. 998.31 (c) and (d), are subject to the assessments. This rule
will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies,
unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. There
are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to any
judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the
economic impact of this rule on small entities.
[[Page 29927]]
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.
There are approximately 45 handlers of peanuts who have not signed
the agreement and, thus, will be subject to the regulations specified
herein. Also, there are approximately 47,000 producers of peanuts in
the 16 States covered under the agreement and approximately 76 handlers
subject to regulation under the agreement. Small agricultural producers
have been defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.601)
as those having annual receipts of less than $500,000, and small
agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts
are less than $5,000,000. A majority of the producers and the non-
signatory handlers may be classified as small entities, and some of the
handlers covered under the agreement are small entities.
Under the agreement, the assessment rate for a particular crop year
applies to all assessable tonnage handled from the beginning of such
year (i.e., July 1). Funds to administer the peanut agreement program
are paid to the Committee and are derived from signatory handler
assessments. An annual budget of expenses is prepared by the Committee
and submitted to the Department for approval. The members of the
Committee are handlers and producers of peanuts. They are familiar with
the Committee's needs and with the costs for goods, services, and
personnel for program operations and, thus, are in a position to
formulate appropriate budgets. The budgets are formulated and discussed
at industry-wide meetings. Thus, all directly affected persons have an
opportunity to provide input in recommending the budget and assessment
rate. The handlers of peanuts who are directly affected have signed the
marketing agreement authorizing the expenses that may be incurred and
the imposition of assessments.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee for the 1995-96
crop year was derived by dividing anticipated expenses by expected
receipts and acquisitions of farmers' stock peanuts. It applies to all
assessable peanuts received or acquired by handlers from July 1, 1995.
Farmers' stock peanuts received or acquired by non-signatory handlers
and farmers' stock peanuts received or acquired by handlers signatory
to the agreement, other than from those described in Secs. 998.31 (c)
and (d), are subject to assessments. Because that rate is applied to
actual receipts and acquisitions, it must be established at a rate
which will produce sufficient income to pay the Committee's expenses.
Approximately 95 percent of the domestically produced peanut crop is
marketed by handlers who are signatory to the agreement.
Pub. L. 101-220 amended section 608b of the Act to require that all
peanuts handled by persons who have not entered into the agreement
(non-signers) be subject to quality and inspection requirements to the
same extent and manner as are required under the Agreement.
Approximately 5 percent of the U.S. peanut crop is marketed by non-
signer handlers.
Pub. L. 103-66 (107 Stat. 312) provides for mandatory assessment of
farmer's stock peanuts acquired by non-signatory peanut handlers. Under
this law, paragraph (b) of section 1001, of the Agricultural
Reconciliation Act of 1993, specified that: (1) Any assessment (except
indemnification assessments) imposed under the Agreement on signatory
handlers also shall apply to non-signatory handlers, and (2) such
assessment shall be paid to the Secretary.
The 1995-96 Committee budget was published in the Federal Register
as an interim final rule on May 17, 1995, (60 FR 26348), and finalized
on July 18, 1995 (60 FR 36635). The non-signatory handler assessment
rate was published in the Federal Register as an interim final rule on
August 21, 1995 (60 FR 43353), and finalized on November 24, 1995 (60
FR 57907). The administrative expenses and assessment rate for the
1995-96 crop year were based on an estimated assessable tonnage of
1,525,000. The Committee now projects that total tonnage will only be
about 1,300,000. In order to have sufficient revenue to cover budgeted
expenses of $1,067,500, the Committee met on March 19, 1996, and
unanimously recommended that the 1995-96 crop year administrative
assessment be increased from $0.70 to $0.83 per net ton of assessable
farmers' stock peanuts.
While this action will impose some additional costs on handlers,
the costs are in the form of uniform assessments on all handlers
signatory to the agreement. Some of the additional costs may be passed
on to producers. However, these costs will be significantly offset by
the benefits derived from the operation of the marketing agreement.
This administrative assessment is required by law to be applied
uniformly to all non-signatory handlers and will be of benefit to all.
Therefore, the AMS has determined that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
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.
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 action until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register
because: (1) The Committee needs to have sufficient funds to pay its
expenses which are incurred on a continuous basis; (2) Pub. L. 103-66
requires the Department to impose an administrative assessment on
peanuts received or acquired for the account of non-signatory handlers;
(3) the 1995-96 crop year began on July 1, 1995, and the marketing
agreement and Pub. L. 103-66 require that the rate of assessment for
the crop year apply to all peanuts handled during the crop year; (4)
handlers are aware of this action which was unanimously recommended by
the Committee at a public meeting and is similar to other budget
actions issued in past years; and (5) this interim final rule provides
a 30-day comment period, and all comments timely received will be
considered prior to finalization of this rule.
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 997
Food grades and standards, Peanuts, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
7 CFR Part 998
Marketing agreements, Peanuts, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR parts 997 and 998
are amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR parts 997 and 998 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
Note: These sections will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
[[Page 29928]]
PART 997--PROVISIONS REGULATING THE QUALITY OF DOMESTICALLY
PRODUCED PEANUTS HANDLED BY PERSONS NOT SUBJECT TO THE PEANUT
MARKETING AGREEMENT
Sec. 997.100 [Amended]
2. Section 997.100 is amended by removing ``$0.70'' and adding in
its place ``$0.83.''
PART 998--MARKETING AGREEMENT REGULATING THE QUALITY OF
DOMESTICALLY PRODUCED PEANUTS
Sec. 998.408 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 998.408, paragraph (c) is amended by removing ``$1.70''
and adding in its place ``$1.83'' and by removing ``$0.70'' and adding
in its place ``$0.83.''
Dated: June 7, 1996.
Robert C. Keeney,
Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-14987 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14985 Hazelnuts Grown in Oregon and Washington; Assessment Rate
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29924-29926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14985]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 982
[Docket No. FV96-982-1IFR]
Hazelnuts Grown in Oregon and Washington; Assessment Rate
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Interim final rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This interim final rule establishes an assessment rate for the
Hazelnut Marketing Board (Board) under Marketing Order No. 982 for the
1996-97 and subsequent marketing years. The Board is responsible for
local administration of the marketing order which regulates the
handling of hazelnuts grown in Oregon and Washington. Authorization to
assess hazelnut handlers enables the Board to incur expenses that are
reasonable and necessary to administer the program.
[[Page 29925]]
DATES: Effective July 1, 1996. Comments received by July 15, 1996, will
be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this rule. Comments must be sent in triplicate to the Docket
Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room
2523-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456, FAX 202-720-5698. Comments should
reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue
of the Federal Register and will be available for public inspection in
the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Sue Clark, Marketing Order
Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O.
Box 96456, room 2523-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456, telephone 202-720-
9918, FAX 202-720-5698, or Teresa L. Hutchinson, Northwest Marketing
Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, Green-Wyatt
Federal Building, room 369, 1220 Southwest Third Avenue, Portland, OR
97204, telephone 503-326-2724, FAX 503-326-7440.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing
Agreement and Order No. 982, both as amended (7 CFR part 982; April 22,
1996, 61 FR 17556), regulating the handling of hazelnuts grown in
Oregon and Washington. 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 rule in
conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, Oregon-
Washington hazelnut handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to
administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended
that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all
assessable hazelnuts beginning July 1, 1996, and continuing until
amended, suspended, or terminated. 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. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on
the petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the
petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States
in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or
her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the
Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not
later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the
economic impact of this rule on small entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in
that they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 1,000 producers of Oregon and Washington
hazelnuts in the production area and approximately 25 handlers subject
to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers
have been defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.601)
as those having annual receipts of less than $500,000, and small
agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts
are less than $5,000,000. The majority of Oregon and Washington
hazelnut producers and handlers may be classified as small entities.
The Oregon and Washington hazelnut marketing order provides
authority for the Board, with the approval of the Department, to
formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from
handlers to administer the program. The members of the Board are
producers and handlers of hazelnuts. They are familiar with the Board's
needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and
are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and
assessment rate. The assessment rate is recommended by a mail vote and
discussed reconfirmed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected
persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
The Board, in a mail vote, unanimously recommended 1996-97
expenditures of $558,974 and an assessment rate of $0.007 per pound of
hazelnuts. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were
$483,685. The assessment rate of $0.007 is the same as last year's
established rate. Major expenditures recommended by the Board for the
1996-97 year include $50,020 for personal services (salaries), $5,640
for rent, $5,000 for auditing, $5,000 for compliance, $15,000 for a
crop survey, $275,000 for promotion, and $182,364 for the emergency
fund. Budgeted expenses for these items in 1995-96 were $50,735,
$5,650, $3,500, $5,000, $11,000, $250,000, and $140,000, respectively.
The Board will consider using emergency funds for authorized activities
when it is reasonably certain that its estimate of assessable hazelnuts
will be reached. It will not be able to make this determination until
December 1996, the month in which the hazelnut harvest and deliveries
to handlers usually are completed. Hence, any decision on whether or
not to undertake additional activities will not be made until December
1996, at the earliest.
The assessment rate recommended by the Board was derived by
dividing anticipated expenses by expected shipments of Oregon and
Washington hazelnuts. Hazelnut shipments for the year are estimated at
20,000,000 pounds which should provide $280,000 in assessment income.
Income derived from handler assessments, interest, and from the Nut
Growers Society in payment for services performed by the Board under an
agreement with the Society, along with funds from the Board's
authorized reserve, will be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds
remaining in the reserve at the end of the 1996-97 marketing year
should be about $196,240. Funds in the reserve will be kept within the
maximum permitted by the order.
While this rule will impose some additional costs on handlers, the
costs are in the form of uniform assessments on all handlers. Some of
the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these
costs will be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the
marketing order. Therefore, the AMS has determined that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in
effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by the
Secretary upon recommendation and information submitted by the Board or
other available information.
Although this assessment rate is effective for an indefinite
period, the
[[Page 29926]]
Board will continue to conduct a mail vote prior to or during each
fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider
recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. Any mail votes
will be discussed and reconfirmed at a public meeting. The dates and
times of Board meetings are available from the Board or the Department.
Board meetings are open to the public and interested persons may
express their views at these meetings. The Department will evaluate
Board recommendations and other available information to determine
whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further
rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Board's 1996-97 budget
and those for subsequent fiscal periods will be reviewed and, as
appropriate, approved by the Department.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including
the information and recommendation submitted by the Board and other
available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as
hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of
the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good
cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public
interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into
effect and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date
of this action until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register
because: (1) The Board needs to have sufficient funds to pay its
expenses which are incurred on a continuous basis; (2) the 1996-97
marketing year begins on July 1, 1996, and the marketing order requires
that the rate of assessment for each marketing year apply to all
assessable hazelnuts handled during such marketing year; (3) handlers
are aware of this action which was unanimously recommended by the Board
in a mail vote and is similar to the assessment rate action issued last
year; and (4) this interim final rule provides a 30-day comment period,
and all comments timely received will be considered prior to
finalization of this rule.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 982
Filberts, Hazelnuts, Marketing agreements, Nuts, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 982 is
amended as follows:
PART 982--HAZELNUTS GROWN IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 982 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
2. A new subpart--Assessment Rates and a new Sec. 982.340 are added
to read as follows:
Subpart--Assessment Rates
Sec. 982.340 Assessment rate.
On and after July 1, 1996, an assessment rate of $0.007 per pound
of assessable hazelnuts is established for Oregon and Washington
hazelnuts.
Dated: June 7, 1996.
Robert C. Keeney,
Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-14985 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14971 Tobacco Inspection; Growers' Referendum Results
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29923-29924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14971]
========================================================================
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. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 29923]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 29
[Docket No. TB-95-15]
Tobacco Inspection; Growers' Referendum Results
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains the determination with respect to the
referendum on the merger of Boone and West Jefferson, North Carolina,
and Mountain City, Tennessee, to become the consolidated market of
Boone-West Jefferson-Mountain City. A mail referendum was conducted
April 15-26, 1996, among tobacco growers who sold tobacco on these
markets the previous season to determine producer approval/disapproval
of the designation of these three markets as one consolidated market.
Growers approved the merger. Therefore, for the 1996 and succeeding
burley marketing seasons, the Boone and West Jefferson, North Carolina,
and Mountain City, Tennessee, tobacco markets shall be designated as
and called Boone-West Jefferson-Mountain City. The regulations are
amended to reflect this new designated market.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Fial, Assistant to the
Director, Tobacco Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, United
States Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-
6456; telephone number (202) 260-0151.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice was published in the March 18,
1996, issue of the Federal Register (61 FR 10902) announcing that a
referendum would be conducted among active burley producers who sold
tobacco on either Boone, West Jefferson, or Mountain City, during the
previous season to ascertain if such producers favor the consolidation.
The notice of referendum announced the determination by the
Secretary that the consolidated market of Boone and West Jefferson,
North Carolina, and Mountain City, Tennessee, would be designated as a
burley tobacco auction market and receive mandatory Federal grading of
tobacco sold at auction for the 1996 and succeeding seasons, subject to
the results of the referendum. The determination was based on the
evidence and arguments presented at a public hearing held in Boone,
North Carolina, on September 15, 1995, pursuant to applicable
provisions of the regulations issued under the Tobacco Inspection Act,
as amended. The referendum was held in accordance with the provisions
of the Tobacco Inspection Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 511d) and the
regulations set forth in 7 CFR 29.74.
Ballots for the April 15-26 referendum were mailed to 3,423
producers. Approval required votes in favor of the proposal by two-
thirds of the eligible voters who cast valid ballots. The Department
received a total of 923 responses: 685 eligible producers voted in
favor of the consolidation; 204 eligible producers voted against the
consolidation; and 34 ballots were determined to be invalid.
The Department of Agriculture is issuing this rule in conformance
with Executive Order 12866.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12788,
Civil Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have retroactive
effect. The final rule will not preempt any State or local laws,
regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable
conflict with this rule. There are no administrative procedures which
must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of
this rule.
Additionally, in conformance with the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), full consideration has been
given to the potential economic impact upon small business. Most
tobacco producers and many tobacco warehouses are small businesses as
defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This action will not
substantially affect the normal movement of the commodity in the
marketplace. It has been determined that this action will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 29
Administrative practices and procedures, Advisory committees,
Government publications, Imports, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping procedures, Tobacco.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 29, subpart
D, is amended as follows:
PART 29--[AMENDED]
Subpart D--Order of Designation of Tobacco Markets
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 29, subpart D, continues
to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 5, 49 Stat. 732, as amended by sec. 157 (a)(1),
95 Stat. 374 (7 U.S.C. 511d).
2. In Sec. 29.8001, the table is amended by adding a new entry
(nnn) to read as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Territory Types of tobacco Auction markets Order of designation Citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
(nnn) North Carolina, Burley............ Boone-West July 15, 1996.
Tennessee. Jefferson-
Mountain City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29924]]
Dated: June 5, 1996.
Kenneth C. Clayton,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-14971 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14970 Tobacco Inspection; Growers' Referendum Results
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14970]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 29
[Docket No. TB-95-13]
Tobacco Inspection; Growers' Referendum Results
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains the determination with respect to the
referendum on the merger of Horse Cave, Glasgow, and Greensburg,
Kentucky, to become the consolidated market of Horse Cave-Glasgow-
Greensburg. A mail referendum was conducted during the period of April
15-26, 1996, among tobacco growers who sold tobacco on these markets
the previous season to determine producer approval/disapproval of the
designation of these three markets as one consolidated market. Growers
approved the merger. Therefore, for the 1996 and succeeding burley
marketing seasons, the Horse Cave, Glasgow, and Greensburg, Kentucky,
tobacco markets shall be designated as and called Horse Cave-Glasgow-
Greensburg. The regulations are amended to reflect this new designated
market.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Fial, Assistant to the
Director, Tobacco Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, United
States Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-
6456; telephone number (202) 260-0151.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice was published in the March 18,
1996, issue of the Federal Register (61FR, 10902) announcing that a
referendum would be conducted among active burley producers who sold
tobacco on either Horse Cave, Glasgow, or Greensburg markets to
ascertain if such producers favored the consolidation.
The notice of referendum announced the determination by the
Secretary that the consolidated market of Horse Cave-Glasgow-
Greensburg, Kentucky, would be designated as a burley tobacco auction
market and receive mandatory Federal grading of tobacco sold at auction
for the 1996 and succeeding seasons, subject to the results of the
referendum. The determination was based on the evidence and arguments
presented at a public hearing held in Cave City, Kentucky, on September
13, 1995, pursuant to applicable provisions of the regulations issued
under the Tobacco Inspection Act, as amended. The referendum was held
in accordance with the provisions of the Tobacco Inspection Act, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 511d) and the regulations set forth in 7 CFR 29.74.
Ballots for the April 15-26 referendum were mailed to 7,602
producers. Approval required votes in favor of the proposal by two-
thirds of the eligible voters who cast valid ballots. The Department
received a total of 2,124 responses: 1,815 eligible producers voted in
favor of the consolidation; 213 eligible producers voted against the
consolidation; and 96 ballots were determined to be invalid.
The Department of Agriculture is issuing this rule in conformance
with Executive Order 12866.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12788,
Civil Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have retroactive
effect. The final rule will not preempt any State or local laws,
regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable
conflict with this rule. There are no administrative procedures which
must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of
this rule.
Additionally, in conformance with the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), full consideration has been
given to the potential economic impact upon small business. Most
tobacco producers and many tobacco warehouses are small businesses as
defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This action will not
substantially affect the normal movement of the commodity in the
marketplace. It has been determined that this action will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 29
Administrative practices and procedures, Advisory committees,
Government publications, Imports, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping procedures, Tobacco.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 29, subpart
D, is amended as follows:
PART 29--[AMENDED]
Subpart D--Order of Designation of Tobacco Markets
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR Part 29, subpart D, continues
to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 5, 49 Stat. 732, as amended by sec. 157(a)(1),
95 Stat. 374 (7 U.S.C. 511d).
2. In Sec. 29.8001, the table is amended by adding a new entry
(mmm) to read as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Territory Types of tobacco Auction markets Order of designation Citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
(mmm) Kentucky............... burley............ Horse Cave- July 15, 1996.
Glasgow-
Greensburg, KY.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: June 5, 1996.
Kenneth C. Clayton,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-14970 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14968 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of New Mexico; Approval of the Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Emissions Inventory, and Maintenance Plan; Redesignation to Attainment; Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, New Mexico; Carbon Monoxide
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29970-29973]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14968]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[NM 28-1-7312; FRL-5514-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of New Mexico;
Approval of the Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Emissions
Inventory, and Maintenance Plan; Redesignation to Attainment;
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, New Mexico; Carbon Monoxide
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is redesignating to attainment the Albuquerque/Bernalillo
County carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment area. This action is in
response to a request from the Governor of New Mexico on behalf of the
Albuquerque and Bernalillo County carbon monoxide nonattainment area.
The Governor's request included a revision to the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) for the administration of a vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program, a 1993 emissions inventory for Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County, and an attainment maintenance plan. On February 16,
1996, the EPA proposed approval of the Albuquerque/ Bernalillo County
I/M program, 1993 periodic emissions inventory, the maintenance plan,
and the request for redesignation, because all met the requirements set
forth in the Clean Air Act (Act). This final action promulgates the
rule, redesignating the area to attainment, and incorporating the
request into the SIP.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
addresses listed below. The interested persons wanting to examine these
documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at
least twenty-four hours before the visiting day.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket Room
M1500), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington,
D. C. 20460
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-
[[Page 29971]]
L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
Albuquerque Environmental Health Department, Air Pollution Control
Division, One Civic Plaza Room 3023, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Matthew Witosky, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214)
665-7214.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, New Mexico, was designated
nonattainment for CO and classified as moderate with a design value
below 12.7 parts per million (ppm) (specifically 11.1 ppm), under
sections 107(d)(4)(A) and 186(a) of the Act, upon enactment of the
Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 (the Act).1 Please
reference 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991) and 57 FR 13498 and 13529
(April 16, 1992). On November 5, 1992, the Governor of New Mexico
submitted to the EPA a SIP revision for CO concerning Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County that was intended to satisfy the Act's requirements
due on November 15, 1992. The Act outlines certain required items to be
included in CO SIPs. The required items for the Albuquerque/Bernalillo
County CO SIP, due November 15, 1992, included: (1) a comprehensive,
accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of
CO in the nonattainment area (sections 172(c)(3) and 187(a)(1) of the
Act); (2) no later than September 30, 1995, and no later than the end
of each three year period thereafter, until the area is redesignated to
attainment, a revised inventory meeting the requirements of sections
187(a)(1) and 187(a)(5) of the Act; (3) a permit program to be
submitted by November 15, 1993, which meets the requirements of section
173 for the construction and operation of new and modified major
stationary sources of CO (section 172(c)(5)); (4) contingency measures
due November 15, 1993, that are to be implemented if the EPA determines
that the area has failed to attain the primary standards by the
applicable date (section 172(c)(9)); (5) a commitment to upgrade and
submit a SIP revision for the I/M program by November 15, 1993,
(section 187(a)(4)); and (6) an oxygenated fuels program (section
211(m)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Clean Air Act as amended (1990 Amendments) made
significant changes to the air quality planning requirements for
areas that do not meet (or that significantly contribute to ambient
air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the CO NAAQS (see
Pub. L. No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399). References herein are to the
CAAA, 42 U.S.C. sections 7401 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several of these items required to be in the City/County CO SIP
were approved at different times prior to this action. The 1990 base
year inventory, the oxygenated fuels program, and the winter wood
burning program were approved on November 29, 1993, at 58 FR 62535. The
nonattainment New Source Review program was approved on December 21,
1994, at 58 FR 67326. Required contingency measures were approved on
May 5, 1995, at 59 FR 23167. Transportation conformity rules were
approved on November 8, 1995, at 60 FR 56238. This action provides
final approval for the 1993 emissions inventory, the vehicle inspection
and maintenance program, the attainment maintenance plan, and the
maintenance contingency provisions.2 Hence, the City/County has a
completely approved SIP for the purposes of redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The attainment contingency measure approved on May 5, 1995
at 59 FR 23167 would become one of two maintenance contingency
measures through final action on this petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board has
ambient monitoring data showing attainment of the CO National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) during the period from 1992 through all
of 1995. Therefore, in an effort to comply with the Act and to ensure
continued attainment of the CO NAAQS, on April 14, 1995, the Governor
of New Mexico submitted a CO redesignation request and a maintenance
plan for the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County area. The redesignation
request and maintenance plan were both approved by the Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board (hereafter referred to as
City/County) after a public hearing held on April 13, 1995.
II. Evaluation of Petition
The Act revised section 107(d)(3)(E) to provide specific
requirements that an area must meet in order to be redesignated from
nonattainment to attainment. The EPA performed a detailed analysis of
the City/County's petition and proposed approval on February 16, 1996
(see 61 FR 6179). The EPA concluded that the City/County had met all
applicable requirements. No comments received during the public comment
period have given the EPA cause to rescind the proposed approval.
Please see the proposed rule and Technical Support Document (TSD) for
the complete analysis.
III. Response to Comments
The EPA received one letter containing adverse comments to the
proposed action.
Comment: The commenter questioned whether the City of Albuquerque
and Bernalillo County would be in attainment if a previously
operational special-purpose monitor were still in place. The commenter
contended that the permanent monitoring network in place does not
accurately reflect air quality in the ``Uptown'' area of the City.
Response: The EPA disagrees with this comment in two respects. The
City/County operates an extensive CO monitoring network that
sufficiently covers the nonattainment area, operating more monitors
than required of cities of equal or greater population and area. All
current monitoring sites meet the siting criteria the EPA uses to
evaluate the location of individual monitors. The network as a whole
also conforms to the current EPA policy and guidance that dictate
coverage and resolution of monitoring data within a given domain to
demonstrate attainment.
The EPA reviewed the comment with the City/County to determine if
air quality analysis had been conducted in the ``Uptown'' area of the
City. The City/County provided documentation and analysis of a
monitoring exercise carried out in the high CO season of 1995. The
City/County deployed two special purpose monitors for 11 days to
discern if a CO ``hot spot'' exists at the intersection nearest the
previous site of the special purpose monitor. Direct monitoring data
showed little possibility that ambient CO concentrations currently
present a problem for human health or the environment. The monitoring
data generated by the special purpose monitor indicate CO levels in
compliance with the national standards. It should be pointed out that
the special purpose monitors were placed to measure the highest
possible concentrations at the locations in question, and CO levels
still remained below national standards. Statistical tests on the
correlation between CO values at the permanent and special purpose
monitors indicate that the monitoring data were representative of air
quality, reasonable and accurate. Hence, the City/County has adequately
ascertained that the existing monitoring network accurately reflects
air quality in the ``Uptown'' area. To review the information provided
by City/County, see the addendum to the Technical
[[Page 29972]]
Support Document (TSD) in the docket file.
Comment: The commenter asserted that efforts of the City of
Albuquerque and Bernalillo County to reduce vehicle-miles travelled
(VMT) in the nonattainment area are inadequate for the City/County to
achieve attainment.
Response: The EPA disagrees that the City/County should be required
to implement additional reductions in VMT to attain the standard. The
main components of the CO control program are the vehicle inspection
and maintenance program, the oxygenated fuels program, the episode
contingency plan, and the new source review permit program. The City/
County has also adopted general and transportation conformity rules
that are also currently being applied. Although the commenter
specifically mentions high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, the use of
mass transit, public education campaigns, and pedestrian and bike
trails, these programs do not constitute the mainstay of the CO control
program, upon which the City/County achieved attainment and requested
redesignation. The main parts of the control program, in conjunction
with other federal programs, have enabled the area to achieve four
years of continuous attainment with the CO standard. Should the main
parts of the program not achieve maintenence of the standard,
contingency measures will be applied without further action by the
City/County to bring the area back into attainment. See the proposed
rule for discussion of the applicable contingency measures.
Comment: The commenter asserted that implementation of the
Intermodal Multimodal Transporation Plan and Transportation Improvement
Program is deficient.
Response: The implementation of the Intermodal Multimodal
Transporation Plan and Transportation Improvement Plans (TIP) are not
under the purview of the EPA. The EPA takes this opportunity to point
out that the U.S. Department of Transportation renders the
determination that the TIP does or does not conform to the SIP, for
transportation planning purposes.
IV. Final Action
The EPA is issuing final approval of the request of the State of
New Mexico and Albuquerque/Bernalillo County to redesignate the
Albuquerque CO nonattainment area to attainment status. The EPA is also
issuing final approval of the vehicle inspection and maintenance
program, the 1993 periodic emissions inventory, and the attainment
maintenance plan. The EPA received and addressed comments on the
proposed approval of all these elements of the complete CO SIP.
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action under the
procedures published in the FR on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225),
as revised by a July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and
Budget has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866
review.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. The EPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in
light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Miscellaneous
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 600 et seq.,
the EPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the
impact of any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C.
Secs. 603 and 604). Alternatively, the EPA may certify that the rule
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations
of less than 50,000.
The SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D, of
the Act do not create any new requirements, but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP-approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify
that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities
affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship
under the Act, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State
action. The Act forbids the EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on
such grounds (Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66
(1976); 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7410(a)(2)).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 12, 1996. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. [See section 307(b)(2).]
Unfunded Mandates
Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act), signed into law on March 22, 1995,
EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to State,
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
Through submission of this state implementation plan or plan
revision, the State and any affected local or tribal governments have
elected to adopt the program provided for under section 110 of the Act.
These rules may bind State, local and tribal governments to perform
certain actions and also require the private sector to perform certain
duties. To the extent that the rules being approved by this action will
impose no new requirements; such sources are already subject to these
regulations under State law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from
this action. The EPA has also determined that this action does not
include a mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or
more to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate or to the
private sector.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, National parks, and Wilderness areas.
Dated: May 15, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administator.
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart GG--New Mexico
2. Section 52.1620 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(63) to read
as follows:
[[Page 29973]]
Sec. 52.1620 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(63) A revision to the New Mexico SIP approving a request for
redesignation to attainment, a vehicle inspection and maintenance
program, and the required maintenance plan for the Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County CO nonattainment area, submitted by the Governor on
May 11, 1995. The 1993 emissions inventory and projections were
included in the maintenance plan.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) A letter from the Governor of New Mexico to EPA dated April 14,
1995, in which the Governor requested redesignation to attainment based
on the adopted Carbon Monoxide Redesignation Request and Maintenance
Plan for Albuquerque/Bernalillo County New Mexico.
(B) Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board
Regulation No. 28, Motor Vehicle Inspection, as amended April 12, 1995
and effective on July 1, 1995.
(ii) Additional material. Carbon Monoxide Redesignation Request and
Maintenance Plan for Albuquerque/Bernalillo County New Mexico, approved
and adopted by the Air Quality Control Board on April 13, 1995.
3. Section 52.1627 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1627 Control strategy and regulations: Carbon monoxide.
Part D Approval. The Albuquerque/Bernalillo County carbon monoxide
maintenance plan as adopted on April 13, 1995, meets the requirements
of Section 172 of the Clean Air Act, and is therefore approved.
PART 81--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations
2. In Sec. 81.332 the table for ``New Mexico-Carbon Monoxide'' is
amended by revising the entry for the Albuquerque Area Bernalillo
County to read as follows:
Sec. 81.332 New Mexico.
* * * * *
New Mexico-Carbon Monoxide
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date\1\ Type Date\1\ Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albuquerque Area Bernalillo County.. July 15, 1996.............. Attainment................. ........................... ...........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-14968 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14967 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Approval of Alternative Compliance Plans for the Reynolds Metals Graphic Arts Plants
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29963-29965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14967]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[VA010-5545a; FRL-5514-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Approval of Alternative Compliance Plans for the Reynolds
Metals Graphic Arts Plants
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. This revision establishes
and requires four packaging rotogravure printing presses at the
Reynolds Metals--Bellwood plant, located in Richmond, Virginia and six
packaging rotogravure printing presses at the Reynolds Metals--South
plant also located in Richmond, Virginia to meet emission limits by
averaging emissions, on a daily basis, within each of the two plants.
The intended effect of this action is to approve two graphic arts
alternative compliance plans; one for the Reynolds Metals--Bellwood
plant and one for the Reynolds Metals--South plant (also known as the
Foil plant). This action is being taken under Section 110 of the Clean
Air Act.
DATES: This final rule is effective July 29, 1996 unless within July
15, 1996, adverse or critical comments are received. If the effective
date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal
Register.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Marcia L. Spink, Associate
Director, Air Programs, Mailcode 3AT00, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19107. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available
for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air,
Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107;
the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; and the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street,
Richmond, Virginia 23219.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcia L. Spink, (215) 566-2104. email
address: [email protected]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 4, 1986, the Virginia State Air
Pollution Control Board (now known as the Virginia Department of air
Pollution Control) submitted alternative compliance plans as a revision
to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Reynolds Metals--
Bellwood plant and the Reynolds Metals--South plant, both located in
Richmond, Virginia. Both of these facilities are subject to the
federally approved Virginia graphic arts regulation, Section 4.55(m)
[currently cited as Rule 4-36, Sections 120-04-3601 through 120-04-
3615]. The alternative compliance plans allow each of these facilities
to average emissions, on a daily basis, in order to meet the applicable
packaging rotogravure standard in Virginia Rule 4-36.
The applicable Virginia SIP graphic arts regulation requires that
packaging rotogravure sources reduce emissions by 65% by weight of
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions on a line-by-line basis. The
Virginia SIP further requires that compliance be based on daily
averages.
Description of the Alternative Compliance Plan for the Bellwood
Plant
The printing presses participating in this alternative compliance
plan are:
(1) Presses No. 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11
(2) Extrudes No. 1, 2, 3, 4
(3) Treating Station for Press #3
(4) Laminator No. 1 (by incineration)
Included in the description of the Bellwood alternative compliance
plan is a reasonably available control technology determination (RACT)
determination for Laminator No. 3. Reynolds states that this operation
is not a packaging rotogravure operation because of certain unique
features. If, in fact, this source is not a packaging rotogravure
operation, it would be considered a non-CTG source (i.e a source for
which EPA has not issued a Control Technique Guideline). The 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments require that major sources in ozone nonattainment
areas be subject to RACT. Richmond, where Reynolds is located, is a
moderate ozone nonattainment area. Virginia's plan limits the total
emissions from this operation to 2 tons per day, in lieu of any other
limit. EPA is proposing to approve the 2 ton per day emission cap as
RACT for Laminator No. 3.
Description of the Alternative Compliance Plan for the South (Foil)
Plant
The printing presses participating in this alternative compliance
plan are:
(1) Cigarette Machines Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4
(2) Coloring Machines No. 7
(3) Glue Mounter Nos. 1, 23
(4) Reseal Machines Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5
(5) Coloring Machines Nos. 1, 2, 6 (unless exhausted to incinerator)
(6) In-line Machine No. 24 (unless exhausted to incinerator)
The alternative compliance plan is configured such that if the
equipment in items (5) and/or (6) above are exhausted to an
incinerator, they will not participate in the plan.
SIP Submittal
The November 4, 1986 SIP submittal package from Virginia consisted
of the following documents:
(1) Cover letter dated 11/4/86 from Richard Cook, VA to James Seif,
EPA Region III.
(2) Consent Order for South-Foil plant, DSE 412A-86 amended 10/86
dated 10/30/86.
(3) Consent Order for Bellwood plant, DSE 413A-86 amended 10/86
dated 10/30/86.
(4) Public hearing certification for 9/30/85 public hearing.
(5) Letter to Ray Cunningham, EPA Region III, from Virginia
submitting the SAPCB meeting agenda.
(6) Letter dated 11/4/86 from John Daniel, VA to David Arnold, EPA
Region III.
The Consent Orders for South and for Bellwood each require that 65%
emission reduction be achieved at the plant over the historical amount
of solvent used to apply the same amount of solids. On December 5,
1986, EPA
[[Page 29964]]
sent a letter to Virginia, requesting additional information concerning
the formulas used to determine compliance and the effect of the revised
alternative compliance plan configurations on the proposed Richmond
SIP. On February 12, 1987, Virginia responded with additional
information which included changes and clarification to the formulas.
Virginia Graphic Arts Regulations
The Virginia graphic arts regulations were cited as being deficient
in the June 14, 1988 follow-up letter to the May 26, 1988 SIP call.
Specifically, the graphic arts regulation requires, for packaging
rotogravure operations, a 65% reduction. The baseline from which this
reduction is to be calculated is not specified. EPA's guidelines for
graphic arts sources require that a waterborne ink (75% water/exempt
solvent by volume) or a high-solids ink (60% solids) be used. If such
inks are not used, the VOC content of those inks must be reduced by 65%
for packaging rotogravure operations. Such a percentage reduction would
be calculated based on the VOC content of the inks used each day. The
reductions obtained by following EPA's guidelines would be larger than
those calculated from a historical average, as Virginia is proposing
for Reynolds. Therefore, the graphic arts regulation, 4.55(m), was not
considered RACT. The deficiencies with the graphic arts regulation were
identified in the June 14, 1988 follow-up letter to the May 26, 1988
SIP call. On May 10, 1991, Virginia submitted a request to revise the
graphic arts regulation, among other regulations, in response to the
comments made in the June 14, 1988 EPA letter. The revised State
regulations were effective July 10, 1991. EPA approved the amended
version of Rule 4-36 as a revision to the Virginia SIP on March 31,
1994 (59 FR 15117) and incorporated it by reference into the SIP at
52.2420(c)(99)(i)(B)(3). Further details regarding the specifics of the
alternative compliance plans for the two Reynolds Metals plants and
issues relating to approval of these plans can be found in the
accompanying technical support document.
Final Action
EPA is approving the alternative compliance plans for the Reynolds
Metals-Bellwood and Reynolds Metals-South plants, which were submitted
on November 4, 1986 as a revision to the Virginia SIP.
EPA is approving this SIP revision without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be
effective July 29, 1996 unless, by July 15, 1996, adverse or critical
comments are received.
If EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn before
the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is
advised that this action will be effective on July 29, 1996.
The Agency has reviewed this request for revision of the Federally-
approved State implementation plan for conformance with the provisions
of the 1990 amendments enacted on November 15, 1990. The Agency has
determined that this action conforms with those requirements
irrespective of the fact that the submittal preceded the date of
enactment.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, the
Administrator certifies that it does not have a significant impact on
any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the
Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation of a flexibility
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base
its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.
EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 12, 1996. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of EPA's
action to approve alternative compliance plans for the Reynolds
Metals--Bellwood and the Reynolds
[[Page 29965]]
Metals--South plants. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 17, 1996.
W. Michael McCabe,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart VV--Virginia
2. Section 52.2420 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(110) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2420 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(110) Alternative Compliance Plans submitted on November 4, 1986 by
the Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board:
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letter of November 4, 1986 from the Virginia State Air
Pollution Control Board transmitting alternative compliance plans for
the Reynolds Metals--Bellwood and South Plants, Richmond, Virginia.
(B) The below-described Consent Agreements and Orders between the
Commonwealth of Virginia and the Reynolds Metals Company, effective
October 31, 1986:
(1) DSE-413A-86--Consent Agreement and Order Addressing Reynolds
Metals Company's Bellwood Printing Plant (Registration No. 50260).
(2) DSE-412A-86--Consent Agreement and Order Addressing Reynolds
Metals Company's Richmond Foil Plant (Registration No. 50534).
(ii) Additional material.
(A) Remainder of November 4, 1986 State submittal.
(B) Letter of February 12, 1987 from the Virginia State Air
Pollution Control Board.
[FR Doc. 96-14967 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14965 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29965-29970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14965]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IN61-1-7230a; FRL-5509-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 19, 1995, and November 8, 1995, the State of
Indiana submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request to
the EPA establishing regulations for automobile refinishing operations
in Clark, Floyd, Lake, and Porter Counties, as part of the State's 15
percent (%) Rate of Progress (ROP) plan control strategies for Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOC) emissions. VOC is an air pollutant which
combines with oxides of nitrogen in the atmosphere to form ground-level
ozone, commonly known as smog. Ozone pollution is of particular concern
because of its harmful effects upon lung tissue and breathing passages.
ROP plans are intended to bring areas which have been exceeding the
public health-based Federal ozone air quality standard closer to
attaining the ozone standard. This rule establishes VOC content limits
for suppliers and users of coating and surface preparation products
applied in motor vehicle/mobile equipment refinishing operations, as
well as requires subject refinishing facilities to meet certain work
practice standards to further reduce VOC. Indiana expects that the
control measures specified in this automobile refinishing SIP will
reduce VOC emissions by 4,679 pounds per day (lbs/day) in Lake and
Porter Counties and 1,172 lbs/day in Clark and Floyd Counties. This
rule is being approved because it meets all the applicable Federal
requirements.
DATES: The ``direct final'' rule is effective on August 12, 1996,
unless EPA receives adverse or critical comments by July 15, 1996. If
the effective date is delayed, timely notification will be published in
the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the revision request are available for inspection
at the following address: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5,
Air and Radiation Division, Air Programs Branch, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that you
telephone Mark J. Palermo at (312) 886-6082 before visiting the Region
5 Office.)
Written comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark J. Palermo at (312) 886-6082.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Submittal Background
Section 182(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (the Act) requires all
moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas to achieve a 15% reduction
of 1990 emissions of VOC by November 15, 1996. In Indiana, Lake and
Porter Counties are classified as ``severe'' nonattainment for ozone,
while Clark and Floyd Counties are classified as ``moderate''
nonattainment. As such, these counties are subject to the 15% ROP
requirement.
The Act specifies under section 182(b)(1)(C) that the 15% emission
reduction claimed under the ROP plan must be achieved through the
implementation of control measures through revisions to the SIP, the
promulgation of federal rules, or the issuance of permits under Title V
of the Act, by November 15, 1996. Control measures implemented before
November 15, 1990, are precluded from counting toward the 15%
reduction. In addition, section 172(c)(9) requires moderate areas to
adopt contingency measures by November 15, 1993. The General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 (April 28, 1992, 57 FR at 18070), states that the contingency
measures generally must provide reductions of 3% from the 1990 base-
year inventory, which can be met through additional SIP revisions.
Indiana has adopted and submitted automobile refinishing rules for
the control of VOC as a revision to the SIP for the purpose of meeting
the 15% ROP plan control measure requirement for Clark and Floyd
Counties, as well as meeting the contingency measure requirement for
Lake and Porter Counties. Determination of what emission credit the
State can take for these rules for purposes of the 15% ROP plan and
contingency measures will be addressed in a subsequent rulemaking
action addressing the 15% ROP plan and measures as a whole.
On June 7, 1995, the Indiana Air Pollution Control Board (IAPCB)
adopted the automobile refinishing rule. Public hearings on the rule
were held on January 11, 1995, April 5, 1995, and June 7, 1995, in
Indianapolis, Indiana. The rule was signed by the Secretary of State on
October 3, 1995, and became effective on November 2, 1995; it was
published in the Indiana State Register on November 1, 1995. The
Indiana
[[Page 29966]]
Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) formally submitted the
automobile refinishing rule to EPA on September 19, 1995, as a revision
to the Indiana SIP for ozone; supplemental documentation to this
revision was submitted on November 8, 1995. EPA made a finding of
completeness in a letter dated February 9, 1996.
The September 19, 1995, and November 8, 1995, submittals include
the following rules:
326 Indiana Air Code (IAC) 8-10 Automobile Refinishing
(1) Applicability
(2) Definitions
(3) Requirements
(4) Means to limit volatile organic compound emissions
(5) Work practice standards
(6) Compliance procedures
(7) Test procedures
(8) Control system operation, maintenance, and monitoring
(9) Record keeping and reporting
The rule establishes, for Clark, Floyd, Lake, and Porter Counties,
VOC content limits for motor vehicle/mobile equipment refinishing
coatings and surface preparation products which must be met by both the
suppliers of the coatings and products and the refinishers which use
them. As an alternative to using compliant coatings, owners or
operators of subject refinishing facilities can install and operate
add-on control systems, such as incinerators, carbon adsorbers, etc.,
which must achieve an overall reduction of VOC by 81% for compliance
with the rule. The rule also establishes certain work practice
standards for subject refinishers to further reduce VOC, including
equipment, housekeeping, and training requirements. Indiana based its
rules upon EPA's draft Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for
automobile refinishing, Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) for
automobile refinishing, EPA's 1992 VOC model rules, as well as
automobile refinishing rules adopted in other states.
II. Evaluation of Submittal
As previously discussed, Indiana intends that this SIP revision
submittal will be one of the control measures which will satisfy 15%
ROP plan and contingency measure requirements under the Act.
A review of what emission reduction this SIP achieves for purposes
of the Indiana 15% ROP plans and contingency measures will be addressed
when EPA takes rulemaking action on the Lake and Porter 15% ROP and
contingency measures SIP, and the Clark and Floyd 15% ROP and
contingency measures SIP. (EPA will take rulemaking on the overall 15%
ROP and contingency measures in a subsequent rulemaking action(s).) It
should also be noted that Indiana's automobile refinishing rules are
not required to be reviewed for purposes of Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) requirements under the Act, because no
automobile refinishing facility in Indiana has the potential to emit at
least 25 tons of VOC, which would qualify a major source for RACT
purposes.
In order to determine the approvability of the Indiana automobile
refinishing SIP, the rule was reviewed for its consistency with section
110 and part D of the Act, and its enforceability. Used in this
analysis were EPA policy guidance documents, including the draft CTG
for automobile refinishing; the ACT for automobile refinishing; the
June 1992, model VOC rules as they pertain to add-on control systems;
and a memorandum from G.T. Helms to the Air Branch Chiefs, dated August
10, 1990, on the subject of `` Exemption for Low-Use Coatings.'' A
discussion of the rule and EPA's rule analysis follows.
Applicability
The rule's applicability criteria in section 1 establishes that
manufacturers and suppliers of refinishing coatings used in the subject
counties, as well as the owners or operators of the facilities that
refinish motor vehicles or mobile equipment in those counties, are
subject to this rule. Activities exempt by section 1 from this rule are
aerosol coating, graphic design, and touch-up coating applications.
For purposes of this rule, ``motor vehicles'' is defined in section
2(31) to mean automobiles, buses, trucks, vans, motor homes,
recreational vehicles, and motorcycles. ``Mobile equipment'' is defined
in section 2(30) to mean any equipment which may be driven or drawn on
a roadway, including but not limited to the following: truck bodies;
truck trailers; cargo vaults; utility bodies; camper shells;
construction equipment such as mobile cranes, bulldozers, and concrete
mixers; farming equipment such as tractors, plows, and pesticide
sprayers; and miscellaneous equipment such as street cleaners, golf
carts, ground support vehicles, tow motors, and fork lifts.
The activities exempt from the requirement of the rule are defined
as follows. Section 2(2) defines ``aerosol coating products'' to mean a
mixture of resins, pigments, liquid solvents, and gaseous propellants,
packaged in a disposable can for hand-held application. Section 2(24)
defines ``graphic design application'' to mean the application of
logos, letters, numbers, and graphics to a painted surface, with or
without the use of a template. ``Touch-up coating'' is defined in
section 2(52) to mean a coating applied by brush or hand held,
nonrefillable aerosol can to repair minor surface damage and
imperfections.
The applicability criteria in section 1 clearly indicate the
industry and activities subject to the rule. The rule's applicability
criteria are, therefore, approvable.
Definitions
The rule's definitions in section 2, which are based upon similar
definitions in the ACT and draft CTG, accurately describe the subject
industry, the subject and exempt coating categories, and the applicable
control methods and equipment specified in the rule. These definitions
are, therefore, approvable.
Compliance Dates
Section 3 clearly identifies all the required components of the
rule and corresponding compliance dates. Each manufacturer or
distributor of coating or surface preparation products manufactured or
distributed for use in Clark, Floyd, Lake, and Porter Counties must
comply with the rule's applicable VOC content limits and compliance
procedures by November 1, 1995.
Any person commercially providing refinishing coatings or surface
preparation products for use in the four subject counties which were
manufactured after November 1, 1995, must meet the rule's applicable
VOC content and compliance procedures by February 1, 1996. Section 3
does allow the distribution of non-compliant coatings intended to be
used by sources which meet the rule requirements through an add-on
control system rather than through compliant coatings, if certain
compliance procedures are followed in section 6.
Section 3 further provides that any person applying any refinishing
coating or surface preparation product must meet the applicable control
requirements, work practice standards, compliance procedures, test
procedures, control system provisions, and record keeping and reporting
requirements of the rule, by May 1, 1996.
Finally, on and after May 1, 1996, section 3 prohibits any person
from soliciting or requiring any refinishing facility to use a
refinishing coating or surface preparation product that does not comply
with applicable VOC content limits contained in the rule,
[[Page 29967]]
unless that facility operates a compliant add-on control system. These
dates are all well within the November 15, 1996, deadline by which
rules must be implemented in order to be creditable toward the 15% ROP
plan.
Emission Limitations
The rule's VOC content limits for coatings and surface preparation
products are established in section 4, and are generally consistent
with option 1 limits specified in the ACT and draft CTG. The limits
specified in section 4 of the rule are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC content limit
-------------------
Coating category grams/ lbs/
liter gallon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretreatment wash primer............................ 780 6.5
Precoat............................................. 660 5.5
Primer/Primer surfacer.............................. 576 4.8
Primer sealer....................................... 552 4.6
Topcoat:
Single and two stage.............................. 600 5.0
Three and four stage.............................. 624 5.2
Specialty........................................... 840 7.0
Surface Preparation Products (Plastic).............. 780 6.5
Surface Preparation Products (Other)................ 168 1.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of this rule, ``VOC content,'' is defined under
section 2(54) to mean the weight of VOC, less water, and less exempt
solvent, per unit volume, of coating or surface preparation product.
Subject refinishers must meet these VOC content limits on an as-applied
basis.
As an alternative to meeting the VOC content limits of this rule,
section 4 allows subject refinishers to operate a control system which
must achieve an overall reduction of VOC of at least 81% in order to be
in compliance. For purposes of this rule, overall control efficiency is
defined in section 2 as the product of the capture and control device
efficiencies of the control system. The capture efficiency is the
fraction of all VOC applied that is directed to a control device and
control device efficiency is the ratio of the pollution destroyed or
secured by a control device and the pollution introduced into the
control device, expressed as a fraction.
Section 4 also requires that the application of all specialty
coatings except anti-glare/safety coatings shall not exceed 5% by
volume of all coatings applied on a monthly basis, based upon a draft
CTG recommendation to assure that specialty coatings are not used as
substitutes for coatings which have more stringent emission limits.
``Specialty coatings'' is defined at section 2(45) to mean coatings
which are necessary due to unusual and uncommon job performance
requirements, including but not limited to, the following: weld-through
primers, adhesion promoters, uniform finish blenders, elastomeric
materials, gloss flatteners, bright metal trim repair, and multi-color
coatings. These sub-categories of specialty coatings are further
defined in section 2 of the rule.
Work Practice Standards
In addition to coating and surface preparation product emission
limits, subject owners or operators of refinishing facilities must
comply with certain work practice standards under section 5, which
include equipment, housekeeping, and training requirements, to further
reduce VOC. The rule's work practice standards require certain
equipment be used to apply coatings, to clean the coating applicators,
and to store waste solvent, coating, and other materials used in
surface preparation, coating application, and clean-up. These equipment
standards are based upon similar provisions in the ACT and draft CTG.
Section 5 specifies that coating applicators be cleaned in an
enclosed device that: (1) is closed during coating applicator equipment
cleaning operations except when depositing and removing objects to be
cleaned, (2) is closed during non-cleaning operations with the
exception of the device's maintenance and repair, (3) recirculates
cleaning solvent during the cleaning operation so that the solvent is
available for reuse on-site or for disposal off-site.
Section 5 also specifies that subject refinishers can only use the
following equipment for coating application: (1) High-Volume Low-
Pressure (HVLP) spray equipment, (2) electrostatic equipment, or (3)
any other coating application equipment that has been demonstrated, to
the satisfaction of IDEM, to be capable of achieving at least 65%
transfer efficiency. For purposes of this rule, ``HVLP spray'' is
defined under section 2(27) to mean technology used to apply coating to
a substrate by means of coating application equipment which operates
between 0.1 and 10 pounds per square inch gauge air pressure measured
dynamically at the center of the air cap and at the air horns of the
spray system. ``Electrostatic application'' is defined under section
2(20) to mean the application to a substrate of charged atomized paint
droplets which are deposited by electrostatic attraction. Equipment
which matches any of the above definitions is acceptable to be used
under the rule. To determine whether applicator equipment other than
HVLP or electrostatic equipment meet the 65% transfer efficiency
requirement, the refinisher is required under section 5 to submit
sufficient data for IDEM to be able to determine accuracy of the
transfer efficiency claims. All coating applicators as well as
applicator cleaning devices are further required under section 5 to be
operated and maintained according to the manufacturer's
recommendations, and those recommendations shall be available for
inspection by IDEM or EPA upon request.
As for storage equipment requirements, section 5 specifies that
closed, gasket-sealed containers must be used exclusively to store
spent solvent, waste coating, spray booth filter, paper and cloth used
in surface preparation and surface cleanup, and used automotive fluids
until disposed of off-site.
In addition to equipment standards, section 5 requires subject
refinishers to adopt certain housekeeping practices, such as scheduling
operations of a similar nature to reduce VOC material and applying
coatings and surface preparation products in a manner that minimizes
overspray. Operators and owners of subject refinishing facilities must
also, under section 5, develop an annual training program using written
and hands-on procedures to properly instruct employees on how to
implement these housekeeping practices, how to properly use and
maintain the equipment required by section 5, prepare coatings for
application according to manufacturer's instructions so that coatings
meet applicable VOC content limits as applied, and comply with the
recordkeeping requirements of the rule. Untrained employees are allowed
to perform regulated activities for not more than 180 days.
Compliance Procedures, Record Keeping, and Reporting
VOC Content Limits
In order to demonstrate compliance with the VOC content limits of
the rule, section 6(a) requires refinishing product manufacturers to
keep, for each coating or surface preparation product supplied, the
following: (1) the product description; (2) the date of manufacture;
(3) the thinning instructions; (4) the VOC content in grams per liter
and pounds per gallon, as supplied and as applied after any thinning
recommended by the manufacturer; (5) a statement that the coating is,
or is not, in compliance with the VOC limits in section 4(b) of the
rule, and that if the coating is not in compliance, this rule
[[Page 29968]]
prohibits its application at a refinishing facility that does not
control VOC emissions with the application of a control system; and (6)
the name, address, telephone number, and signature of the person
purchasing the product. The manufacturer must also provide a document
containing this information to the owner or operator of the refinishing
facility.
Commercial providers of coating or surface preparation products in
the subject counties are required under section 6(b) to both provide to
the recipient and keep the following records of all such products
supplied in those counties: (1) the product description; (2) the amount
supplied; (3) the date supplied; (4) the VOC content in grams per liter
and pounds per gallon, as supplied and as applied after thinning
recommended by the manufacturer; and (5) the name, address, telephone
number, and signature of the person purchasing the product.
The owner or operator of a refinishing facility subject to this
rule is required under section 6(c) to submit to IDEM a statement
certifying that the facility has acquired and will continuously employ
coating or surface preparation products meeting the rule's VOC limits,
or that an add-on control system in compliance of this rule has been
installed, including a description of the control system. Further, the
owner or operator must meet coating and surface preparation record
keeping requirements under section 9 which includes keeping, for a
minimum of 3 years, records of each refinishing job performed, the job
identification number and the date or dates the job was performed, and
for each coating or surface preparation product used: (1) the records
of the category the coating or product falls under the rule; (2) the
quantity of coating or product used; (3) the VOC content of the coating
as supplied; (4) the name and identification of additives added; (5)
the quantity of additives added; (6) the VOC content of the additives;
and (7) for each surface preparation product, the type of substrate to
which the product is applied. Although the VOC policy memo ``Exemptions
for Low-Use Coatings'' recommends usage limitations and record keeping
of rule-exempt coatings in order to assure exempted coatings are not
used as substitutes for coatings subject to limits under the rule,
additional record keeping to cover the aerosol coating, graphic design
application coatings, and touch-up coatings exempted under section 1 of
the rule is not needed, because these coatings are typically dispensed
from small containers and are not capable of being used as substitutes
for the subject coatings.
Owners and operators must also, under section 9(a)(3), maintain
documents such as Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), product, or other
data sheets provided by the coating manufacturer, distributor, or
supplier, of the coatings or surface preparation products for a period
of 3 years following use of the product, which may be used by EPA or
IDEM to verify the VOC content, as supplied. Except when using a
control system, section 9(a)(4) requires any incidence in which a non-
compliant coating was used to be reported to IDEM within 30 days, along
with the reasons for use of the non-compliant coating and corrective
actions taken.
Owners and operators are allowed under section 7 to use data
provided with the coatings or surface preparation products formulation
information, such as the container label, the product data sheet, and
the MSDS sheet, in order to comply with the limits and record keeping;
however, section 7 provides that owners and operators of refinishing
facilities are nonetheless subject to the applicable test methods of
326 IAC 8-1-4 and 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A. 326 IAC 8-1-4, the
State's VOC rule testing procedures, was approved by EPA and
incorporated in the Indiana SIP on March 6, 1992 (57 FR at 8082). 40
CFR Part 60 Appendix A is Method 24, EPA's established test method for
determining VOC content.
IDEM and EPA are allowed under section 7 to require VOC content
verification of any coating or surface preparation product using EPA
Method 24. In the event of any inconsistency between Method 24 and
product formulation data used by the facility, section 7 provides that
Method 24 shall govern in determining compliance.
The record keeping/reporting requirements for subject facilities
are generally consistent with the draft CTG and assure compliance on an
as-applied basis. Additionally, the rule's requirements for
manufacturers and distributors to meet the coating limits should assure
sufficient supply of compliant coatings so that owners or operators of
refinishing facilities can comply with the rule. The compliance,
testing, and record keeping requirements for coatings and surface
preparation products are, therefore, approvable.
Add-on Control Systems
For demonstration of compliance with the control system
requirements, section 4 requires the source to perform an initial
compliance test of the system on or before May 1, 1996, in accordance
with the test method and requirements of section 7, which, as stated
before, include 40 CFR 60 Appendix A and 326 IAC 8-1-4. Section 4 also
requires an operating parameter value be established during the initial
compliance test, that, when measured through control system monitoring,
indicates compliance with the 81% overall control efficiency
requirement. Section 8(b) establishes the procedures for determining
and monitoring the operating parameter for each type of control device,
which are consistent with the 1992 VOC model rules. Section 7(c)
requires additional compliance tests every two years after the date of
the initial compliance test, whenever the control system is operated
under conditions different from those which were in place at the time
of the previous compliance test, and within 30 days of a written
request by IDEM or the EPA. These compliance tests are required to be
submitted to IDEM as required by section 7(c).
Section 4(c)(5) specifies that continuous compliance is
demonstrated when the operating parameter value remains within a
specified range from the operating parameter measured during the most
recent compliance test that demonstrated the facility was in
compliance. Section 9(b) requires that continuous monitoring records of
the control system's operating parameter measured shall be maintained,
as well as records of all 3 hour periods of operation when controls
systems exceed parameter deviations acceptable under section 4(c)(5).
Section 8(a) requires control systems be operated and maintained
according to the manufacturer's specification and instructions, with a
copy of these operating and maintenance procedures maintained as close
to the control system as possible for reference of personnel and
inspectors. The operation of the control system may be modified upon
written request of IDEM or EPA based on the results of the initial or
subsequent compliance test. Section 9(b) requires that a log of the
operating time of the facility and the facility's capture system,
control device, and monitoring equipment, along with a maintenance log
for the control system, and the monitoring equipment detailing all
routine and nonroutine maintenance performed. The log shall include the
dates and duration of any outages of the capture system, the control
device, or the monitoring system. Control system and monitoring record
keeping, shall, like coating record keeping, be kept for at least 3
years. Section 9(b)(7) requires that sources report within 30 days of
[[Page 29969]]
occurrence of maintenance or repairs on control system or monitoring
equipment, and any 3 hour period of operation where the acceptable
parameter range under section 4(c)(5) is exceeded, along with the
corrective action taken.
The above requirements are generally consistent with the 1992 VOC
model rules' compliance procedures and record keeping/reporting
requirements as they pertain to add-on control equipment, except that
the 1992 VOC model rules do not allow for acceptable operating
parameter deviations from the parameter value established through
compliance testing, and EPA has no technical support which demonstrates
that control systems still meet the 81% requirement when operating
under the rule's allowable performance deviations. However, because
compliant coatings will be readily available due to the rule's coating
supplier requirements, and add-on control equipment is cost prohibitive
for most autobody shops, EPA does not expect that many refinishing
facilities will comply with the Indiana rule through means of a control
system. Since control systems are expected to be rarely used by
Indiana's automobile refinishing facilities, EPA will not request
Indiana to remove the operating parameter deviation allowance for
approval. It should be noted that such acceptable parameter deviations
will not be acceptable in RACT rules without sufficient technical
support. Based on the above analysis, the compliance, testing, and
record keeping provisions for add-on control systems are approvable.
Work Practice Standards
The draft CTG recommends record keeping be required to assure
compliance with equipment standards under the rule, including
maintenance and repair records, and for equipment cleaners, records of
guns cleaned and solvent added and removed.
Although the Indiana rule does not identify specific record keeping
for equipment covered under the rule, inspection of coating
applicators, cleaning equipment, and storage containers used at a given
facility, along with the manufacturer's maintenance instructions
required to be available at the facility under the rule, should suffice
to indicate compliance with the equipment standards.
As for the Indiana rule's housekeeping and annual training
requirements, section 5 requires that the owner or operator keep for a
minimum of 3 years a list of persons, by name and activity, and the
topics in which they have been trained, and the date by which the
trainee completed each training topic, as well as a statement signed by
the trainer certifying each trainee who satisfactorily completed
training in the equipment, housekeeping, and record keeping
requirements of the rule as they apply to the specific job
responsibilities of the employee. These record keeping requirements are
approvable.
Enforcement
The Indiana Code (IC) 13-7-13-1, states that any person who
violates any provision of IC 13-1-1, IC 13-1-3, or IC 13-1-11, or any
regulation or standard adopted by one (1) of the boards (i.e., IAPCB),
or who violates any determination, permit, or order made or issued by
the commissioner (of IDEM) pursuant to IC 13-1-1, or IC 13-1-3, is
liable for a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars
per day of any violation. Because this submittal is a regulation
adopted by the IAPCB, a violation of which subjects the violator to
penalties under IC 13-7-13-1, and because a violation of the ozone SIP
would also subject a violator to enforcement under section 113 of the
Act by EPA, EPA finds that the submittal contains sufficient
enforcement authority for approval. In addition, IDEM has submitted a
civil penalty policy document which accounts for various factors in the
assessment of an appropriate civil penalty for noncompliance with IAPCB
rules, among them, the severity of the violation, intent of the
violator, and frequency of violations. EPA finds these criteria
sufficient to deter non-compliance.
III. Final Rulemaking Action
Based upon the analysis above, the EPA finds that Indiana's
regulation covering automobile refinishing operations, 326 IAC 8-10, as
submitted on September 19, 1995, and November 8, 1995, includes
enforceable state regulations consistent with Federal requirements. EPA
is, therefore, approving this SIP revision submittal.
IV. Procedural Background
A. Direct Final Action
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
EPA views this action as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, EPA is publishing a separate document in
this Federal Register publication, which constitutes a ``proposed
approval'' of the requested SIP revision and clarifies that the
rulemaking will not be deemed final if timely adverse or critical
comments are filed. The ``direct final'' approval shall be effective on
August 12, 1996, unless EPA receives adverse or critical comments by
July 15, 1996. If EPA receives comments adverse to or critical of the
approval discussed above, EPA will withdraw this approval before its
effective date by publishing a subsequent Federal Register document
which withdraws this final action. All public comments received will
then be addressed in a subsequent rulemaking document. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If
no such comments are received, EPA hereby advises the public that this
action will be effective on August 12, 1996.
B. Executive Order 12866
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
C. Applicability to Future SIP Decisions
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. EPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
D. Unfunded Mandates
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act'') (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the
EPA prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule
that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section 203 requires
the EPA to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing,
educating, and advising any small governments that may be significantly
or uniquely affected by the rule.
Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the EPA must
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must
be
[[Page 29970]]
prepared. The EPA must select from those alternatives the least costly,
most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule, unless the EPA explains why this alternative is
not selected or the selection of this alternative is inconsistent with
law.
This final rule only approves the incorporation of existing state
rules into the SIP and imposes no additional requirements. This rule is
estimated to result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments or the private sector of less than $100 million in any one
year. EPA, therefore, has not prepared a budgetary impact statement or
specifically addressed the selection of the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative. Furthermore, because small
governments will not be significantly or uniquely affected by this
rule, the EPA is not required to develop a plan with regard to small
governments.
E. Regulatory Flexibility
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. section 600 et seq.,
EPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact
of any proposed or final rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C. sections 603
and 604.) Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements, but simply approve
requirements a State has already imposed. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP-approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify
that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities
affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship
under the Act, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of the
State action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions
concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. EPA., 427 U.S.
246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. section 7410(a)(2).
F. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 12, 1996. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: May 13, 1996.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. Section 52.770 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(106) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.770 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(106) On September 19, 1995, and November 8, 1995, Indiana
submitted automobile and mobile equipment refinishing rules for Clark,
Floyd, Lake, and Porter Counties as a revision to the State
Implementation Plan. This rule requires suppliers and refinishers to
meet volatile organic compound content limits or equivalent control
measures for coatings used in automobile and mobile equipment
refinishing operations in the four counties, as well as establishing
certain coating applicator and equipment cleaning requirements.
(i) Incorporation by reference. 326 Indiana Administrative Code 8-
10: Automobile refinishing, Section 1: Applicability, Section 2:
Definitions, Section 3: Requirements, Section 4: Means to limit
volatile organic compound emissions, Section 5: Work practice
standards, Section 6: Compliance procedures, Section 7: Test
procedures, Section 8: Control system operation, maintenance, and
monitoring, and Section 9: Record keeping and reporting. Adopted by the
Indiana Air Pollution Control Board June 7, 1995. Filed with the
Secretary of State October 3, 1995. Published at Indiana Register,
Volume 19, Number 2, November 1, 1995. Effective November 2, 1995.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-14965 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14961 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29961-29963]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14961]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IN59-1-7217a; FRL-5510-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 29, 1995, the State of Indiana submitted a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for rule changes specific to
Allison Engine Company (Allison) plants 5 and 8 located in Marion
County, Indiana. The submittal provides for an annual particulate
matter ``bubble'' limit (a single limit which applies to the combined
emissions from more than one source) for several boilers, and the
shutdown of two other boilers. Short term particulate matter emission
limits for all remaining stacks remain unchanged. This submittal
represents a reduction in allowable particulate emissions of 67.7 tons
per year, and the State has submitted a modeling analysis which shows
that the revised rules will not have an adverse effect on air quality.
DATES: The ``direct final'' is effective on August 12, 1996, unless EPA
receives adverse or critical comments by July 15, 1996. If the
effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the revision request are available for inspection
at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that you telephone David Pohlman at
(312) 886-3299 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
Written comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Pohlman at (312) 886-3299.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Indiana's submittal of August 29, 1995, contains revisions to Title
326 Indiana Administrative Code (326 IAC) 6-1-12. The purpose of these
changes is to provide a combined annual emission limit for several
boilers at Allison, and to set an emission limit of zero tons per year
for 2 boilers which have shut down.
The proposed rules were published in the Indiana Register on March
1, 1995. Public hearings were held on the rules on January 11, 1995,
and April 5, 1995, in Indianapolis, Indiana. The rules were adopted by
the Indiana Air Pollution Control Board on April 5, 1995; were
published in the Indiana Register on November 1, 1995, and, became
effective on November 3, 1995.
II. Analysis of State Submittal
The rule revisions in the August 29, 1995, submittal provide for
new particulate matter (measured as total suspended particulate) limits
for three stacks at Allison's plants 5 and 8. Previously, the stack
serving boilers 1-4 (plant 5) had a limit of 173.0 tons per year (tpy),
the stack serving boiler 2 (plant 8) had a limit of 3.2 tpy, the stack
serving boilers 3-6 (plant 8) had a limit of 9.3 tpy, and the stack
serving boilers 7-11 (plant 8) had a limit of 12.2 tpy. These stacks
also had limits of 0.337, 0.15, 0.15, and 0.15 pounds per million
British Thermal Units (lb/MMBTU), respectively. The revision provides
limits of 0 tons per year for boilers 2 and 11, which have shut down.
The hourly mass limits remain unchanged at 0.337 lbs/MMBTU for boilers
1-4 of plant 5, 0.15 lbs/MMBTU for boilers 3-6 of plant 8, and 0.15
lbs/MMBTU for boilers 7-10 of plant 8. The rule provides for a combined
limit of 130.0 tons per year for the boilers mentioned above, as well
as new limits on the types and amounts of fuel which may be burned at
the boilers, and a recordkeeping requirement to document compliance.
One problem which occurs several times in the rule is that, in the
emissions limitations table, a list of several sources is followed by a
single limit. For example, boilers 1-4 have a limit of .337 lbs/MMBTU.
It is not clear from this whether the limit is meant to apply to
individual boilers, or a single stack serving several boilers in
common. The State has informed EPA that its intention in such cases is
that the limit applies to each boiler. Also, the State has agreed to
correct this problem, which occurs in a number of Indiana PM rules. The
EPA believes that, since there is no more lenient interpretation
[[Page 29962]]
than the one intended by the State, the EPA believes this
interpretation will not impede the enforceability of the Allison rules.
This SIP revision will result in an overall reduction in allowed
particulate matter emissions of 67.7 tpy. The State has submitted a
modeling analysis which shows the maximum particulate impact off plant
property to be 1.53 micrograms per cubic meter. The allowable impact
for this type of bubble (see 51 FR 43814) is 5 micrograms per cubic
meter. Therefore, the EPA concludes that the new regulations will
protect air quality in Marion County, Indiana.
III. Final Rulemaking Action
Indiana's submittal includes revisions to 326 IAC 6-1-12. The EPA
has completed an analysis of this SIP revision request based on a
review of the materials presented by Indiana and has determined that it
is approvable because it will result in a decrease in allowable
particulate matter emissions and will protect the air quality in the
Marion County area.
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
EPA views this action as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, EPA is publishing a separate document in
this Federal Register publication, which constitutes a ``proposed
approval'' of the requested SIP revision and clarifies that the
rulemaking will not be deemed final if timely adverse or critical
comments are filed. The ``direct final'' approval shall be effective on
August 12, 1996, unless EPA receives adverse or critical comments by
July 15, 1996. If EPA receives comments adverse to or critical of the
approval discussed above, EPA will withdraw this approval before its
effective date by publishing a subsequent Federal Register document
which withdraws this final action. All public comments received will
then be addressed in subsequent rulemaking. Please be aware that EPA
will institute another comment period on this action only if warranted
by significant revisions to the rulemaking based on any comments
received in response to today's action. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so at this time. If no such
comments are received, EPA hereby advises the public that this action
will be effective on August 12, 1996.
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 9, 1995, memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted
this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. EPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act'') (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the
EPA prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule
that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section 203 requires
the EPA to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing,
educating, and advising any small governments that may be significantly
or uniquely affected by the rule.
Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the EPA must
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must
be prepared. The EPA must select from those alternatives the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the EPA explains why this
alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative is
inconsistent with law.
Because this final rule is estimated to result in the expenditure
by State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of less
then $100 million in any one year, the EPA has not prepared a budgetary
impact statement or specifically addressed the selection of the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative. Because
small governments will not be significantly or uniquely affected by
this rule, the EPA is not required to develop a plan with regard to
small governments. This rule only approves the incorporation of
existing State rules into the SIP. It imposes no additional
requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.)
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements, but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP-approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify
that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities
affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship
under the Act, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of the
State action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions
concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. EPA., 427 U.S.
246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 12, 1996. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter.
Dated: May 15, 1996.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart P--Indiana
2. Section 52.770 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(108) to read
as follows:
[[Page 29963]]
Sec. 52.770 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(108) On August 29, 1995, Indiana submitted a site specific SIP
revision request for Allison Engine Company in Marion County, Indiana.
The revision provides limits of 0 tons per year for boilers 2 and 11,
which have shut down. The hourly mass limits remain unchanged at 0.337
pounds per million British Thermal Units (lbs/MMBTU) for boilers 1-4 of
plant 5, 0.15 lbs/MMBTU for boilers 3-6 of plant 8, and 0.15 lbs/MMBTU
for boilers 7-10 of plant 8. The rule provides for a combined limit of
130.0 tons per year for the boilers mentioned above, as well as new
limits on the types and amounts of fuel which may be burned at the
boilers, and a recordkeeping requirement to document compliance.
(i) Incorporation by reference. Indiana Administrative Code Title
326: Air Pollution Control Board, Article 6: Particulate Rules, Rule 1:
Nonattainment Area Limitations, Section 12: Marion County. Added at 19
In. Reg. 186. Effective November 3, 1995.
[FR Doc. 96-14961 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14902 Class Exemption for the Construction of Connecting Track and Rail Construction Under 49 U.S.C. 10901
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29973-29975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14902]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
49 CFR Part 1150
[Ex Parte No. 392 (Sub-Nos. 2 and 3)]
Class Exemption for the Construction of Connecting Track and Rail
Construction Under 49 U.S.C. 10901
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board (the Board) grants final
approval to a class exemption for the construction and operation of
connecting railroad track in Ex Parte No. 392 (Sub-No. 2) and
terminates the Ex Parte No. 392 (Sub-No. 3) proceeding that proposed to
adopt a different class exemption for all rail construction projects
not covered by the connecting track exemption. Final regulations
establishing the exemption for connecting track are set forth below.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Dettmar, (202) 927-5660. [TDD
for the hearing impaired: (202) 927-5721.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The exemption for the construction of
connecting track was initially proposed in Ex Parte No. 392 (Sub-No.
2). By decision served on September 15, 1992, and notice of proposed
rulemaking published in the Federal Register on September 16, 1992 (57
FR 42733), our predecessor agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission
(ICC), sought public comments on proposed changes to 49 CFR Part 1150
that would establish a class exemption for all rail construction, or,
alternatively, for construction of connecting railroad tracks. The
Board is adopting (with minor changes) the proposed class exemption for
the construction and operation of connecting tracks. We believe the
changes will facilitate expanded rail service and reduce regulatory
delay and also satisfy the requirements of the environmental laws,
because the exemption has been structured so as to assure that there
will be a full and timely environmental review in each case. We do not
believe a class exemption for other rail constructions is warranted.
Therefore, we will terminate the Ex Parte No. 392 (Sub-No. 3)
proceeding and simply continue our practice of expeditiously handling
individual construction exemption requests as an alternative to the
class exemption the ICC had proposed. Additional information is
contained in the Board's decision served on June 13, 1996. To purchase
a copy of the decision, write to, call, or pick up in person from: DC
News & Data, Inc., 1201 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 2229,
Washington, D.C. 20423. (Assistance for the hearing impaired is
available through TDD service (202) 927-5721.)
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1150
Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads.
Decided: May 29, 1996.
By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Simmons, and
Commissioner Owen.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Title 49, Chapter X,
part 1150 is amended as set forth below:
PART 1150--CERTIFICATE TO CONSTRUCT, ACQUIRE, OR OPERATE RAILROAD
LINES
1. The authority citation for part 1150 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553 and 559; 49 U.S.C. 701 note (sec. 204 of
the ICC Termination Act of 1995), 721(a), 10502, and 10901.
2. A new Sec. 1150.36 is added to read as follows:
[[Page 29974]]
Sec. 1150.36 Exempt construction of connecting track.
(a) Scope. This class exemption applies to proceedings involving
the construction and operation of connecting lines of railroad within
existing rail rights-of-way, or on land owned by connecting railroads,
under 49 U.S.C. 10901 (a), (b), and (c). (See the reference to
connecting track in 49 CFR 1105.6(b)(1).) This class exemption is
designed to expedite and facilitate connecting track construction while
ensuring full and timely environmental review. The Surface
Transportation Board (Board) has found that its prior review of
connecting track construction and operation is not necessary to carry
out the rail transportation policy of 49 U.S.C. 10101; that continued
regulation is not necessary to protect shippers from abuse of market
power; and that the construction of connecting track would be of
limited scope. See 49 U.S.C. 10502. To use this class exemption, a pre-
filing notice, environmental report, historic report, and notice of
exemption must be filed that complies with the procedures in
Sec. 1150.36 (b) and (c), and the Board's environmental rules, codified
at 49 CFR part 1105.
(b) Environmental requirements. The environmental regulations at 49
CFR part 1105 must be complied with fully. An environmental report
containing the information specified at 49 CFR 1105.7(e), as well as an
historic report containing the information specified at 49 CFR
1105.8(d), must be filed either before or at the same time as the
notice of exemption is filed. See 49 CFR 1105.7(a). The entity seeking
the exemption authority must also serve copies of the environmental
report on the agencies listed at 49 CFR 1105.7(b). Because the
environmental report must include a certification that appropriate
agencies have been consulted in its preparation (see 49 CFR 1105.7(c)),
parties should begin environmental and historic consultations well
before the notice of exemption is filed. Environmental requirements may
be waived or modified where a petitioner demonstrates in writing that
such action is appropriate. See 49 CFR 1105.10(c). It is to the
advantage of parties to consult with the Board's Section of
Environmental Analysis (SEA) at the earliest possible date to begin
environmental review.
(c) Procedures and dates. (1) At least 20 days prior to the filing
of a notice of exemption with the Board, the party seeking the
exemption authority must notify in writing: the State Public Service
Commission, the State Department of Transportation (or equivalent
agency), and the State Clearinghouse (if there is no clearinghouse, the
State Environmental Protection Agency), of each State involved. The
pre-filing notice shall include: the name and address of the railroad
(or other entity proposing to construct the line) and the proposed
operator; a complete description of the proposed construction and
operation, including a map; an indication that the class exemption
procedure is being used; and the approximate date that construction is
proposed to begin. This pre-filing notice shall include a certification
that the petitioner will comply with the Board's environmental
regulations, codified at 49 CFR part 1105, and a statement that those
regulations generally require the Board to:
(i) Prepare an environmental assessment (EA) (or environmental
impact statement (EIS) if necessary),
(ii) Make the document (EA or EIS, as appropriate) available to the
parties (and to the public, upon request to SEA); and
(iii) Accept for filing and consideration comments on the
environmental document as well as petitions for stay and
reconsideration.
(2) Petitioner must file a verified notice of exemption with the
Board at least 90 days before the construction is proposed to begin. In
addition to the information contained in Sec. 1150.36(c)(1), the notice
shall include a statement certifying compliance with the environmental
rules at 49 CFR part 1105 and the pre-filing notice requirements of 49
CFR 1150.36(c)(1).
(3) The Board, through the Director of the Office of Proceedings,
shall publish a notice in the Federal Register within 20 days after the
notice of exemption is received that describes the construction project
and invites comments. SEA will then prepare an EA (or, if necessary, an
EIS). The EA generally will be made available 15 days after the Federal
Register notice. It will be served on all parties and appropriate
agencies. Others may request a copy from SEA. The deadline for
submission of comments on the EA will generally be within 30 days of
its availability (see 49 CFR 1105.10(b)). If an EIS is prepared, the
time frames and procedures set forth in 49 CFR 1105.10(a) generally
will apply.
(4) The Board's environmental document (together with any comments
and SEA's recommendations) shall be used in deciding whether to allow
the particular construction project to proceed under the class
exemption and whether to impose appropriate mitigating conditions upon
its use (including use of an environmentally preferable route). If the
Board concludes that a particular project will result in serious
adverse environmental consequences that cannot be adequately mitigated,
it may deny authority to proceed with the construction under the class
exemption (the ``no-build'' alternative). Persons believing that they
can show that the need for a particular line outweighs the adverse
environmental consequences can file an application for approval of the
proposed construction under 49 U.S.C. 10901.
(5) No construction may begin until the Board has completed its
environmental review and issued a final decision.
(6) Petitions to stay the effective date of the notice of exemption
on other than environmental and/or historic preservation grounds must
be filed within 10 days of the Federal Register publication. Petitions
to stay the effective date of the notice on environmental and/or
historic preservation grounds may be filed at any time but must be
filed sufficiently in advance of the effective date to allow the Board
to consider and act on the petition before the notice becomes
effective. Petitions for reconsideration must be filed within 20 days
of the Federal Register publication.
(7) The exemption generally will be effective 70 days after
publication in the Federal Register, unless stayed. If the notice of
exemption contains false or misleading information, the exemption is
void ab initio and the Board shall summarily reject the exemption
notice.
(8) Where significant environmental issues have been raised or
discovered during the environmental review process, the Board shall
issue, on or before the effective date of the exemption, a final
decision allowing the exemption to become effective and imposing
appropriate mitigating conditions or taking other appropriate action
such as selecting the ``no build'' alternative.
(9) Where there has been full environmental review and no
significant environmental issues have been raised or discovered, the
Board, through the Director of the Office of Proceedings, shall issue,
on or before the effective date of the exemption, a final decision
consisting of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to show that
the environmental record has been considered (see 49 CFR 1105.10(g)).
(10) The Board, on its own motion or at the request of a party to
the case, will stay the effective date of individual notices of
exemption when an informed decision on environmental issues cannot be
made prior to the date that the exemption authority would otherwise
become effective. Stays will be granted initially for a period of 60
days to
[[Page 29975]]
permit resolution of environmental issues and issuance of a final
decision. The Board expects that this 60-day period will usually be
sufficient for these purposes unless preparation of an EIS is required.
If, however, environmental issues remain unresolved upon expiration of
this 60-day period, the Board, upon its own motion, or at the request
of a party to the case, will extend the stay, as necessary to permit
completion of environmental review and issuance of a final decision.
The Board's order will specify the duration of each extension of the
initial stay period. In cases requiring the preparation of an EIS, the
Board will extend the stay for a period sufficient to permit compliance
with the procedural guidelines established by the Board's environmental
regulations.
(d) Third-Party Consultants. An environmental and historic report
required under 49 CFR 1105.7 and 1105.8 will not be required where a
petitioner engages a third-party consultant who is approved by SEA and
acts under SEA's direction and supervision in preparing the EA or EIS.
In such a case, the third-party consultant must act on behalf of the
Board, working under SEA's direction to collect the environmental
information that is needed and to compile it into a draft EA or EIS,
which is prepared under SEA's direction and then submitted to SEA for
its final review and approval. See 49 CFR 1105.10(d).
[FR Doc. 96-14902 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14869 Airworthiness Directives; Teledyne Continental Motors (formerly Bendix) S-20, S-1200, D-2000, and D-3000 Series Magnetos
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29934-29936]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14869]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 93-ANE-07; Amendment 39-9649; AD 96-12-07]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Teledyne Continental Motors (formerly
Bendix) S-20, S-1200, D-2000, and D-3000 Series Magnetos
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive
(AD), applicable to Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) (formerly Bendix)
S-20, S-1200, D-2000, and D-3000 series magnetos equipped with impulse
couplings, that currently requires inspections for wear, and
replacement, if necessary, of the impulse coupling assemblies. This
amendment requires replacement, if necessary, of worn riveted impulse
coupling assemblies with serviceable riveted impulse couplings or snap
ring impulse couplings. This amendment is prompted by the availability
of an improved design for the impulse coupling assembly. The actions
specified by this AD are intended to prevent magneto failure and
subsequent engine failure.
DATES: Effective July 18, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of July 18, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Teledyne Continental Motors, P.O. Box 90, Mobile, AL
36601; telephone (334) 438-3411. This information may be examined at
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), New England Region, Office
of the Assistant Chief Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803-5299; or at the Office of the Federal Register,
800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Robinette, Aerospace Engineer,
Atlanta Certification Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, Campus
Building, 1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2-160, College Park, GA, 30337-
2748; telephone (404) 305-7371, fax (404) 305-7348.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 4, 1983, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) issued airworthiness directive (AD) 78-09-07 R3,
Amendment 39-4538 (48 FR 1482, January 13, 1983), to require
inspections for wear, and replacement, if necessary, of the impulse
coupling assemblies on certain Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM)
(formerly Bendix) S-20, S-1200, D-2000, and D-3000 series magnetos
equipped with impulse couplings. That action was prompted by reports of
numerous magneto failures. That condition, if not corrected, could
result in magneto failure and subsequent engine failure.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations was
published as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal
Register on September 21, 1993 (58 FR 48987). That NPRM would have
retained the repetitive inspections for wear required by the current
AD, but would have also required replacement, if necessary, of the
riveted impulse coupling assembly with newly designed, improved, snap
ring impulse coupling assemblies. In addition, the proposed AD would
have required marking the magneto data plate to indicate installation
of a snap ring impulse coupling assembly. Installation of snap ring
impulse coupling assemblies would have constituted terminating action
to the inspection requirements of this AD. That NPRM was prompted by
the manufacturer redesigning the impulse coupling assembly to include
snap ring fastening technology which strengthens the cam axle and
reduces wear. The snap ring impulse coupling assembly was believed not
to have the failure mode of the previous design.
Since the issuance of that NPRM, the FAA received reports of snap
ring impulse coupling assemblies being worn beyond limits. The FAA
determined that it was necessary to reopen the proposal for public
comment, so a Supplemental NPRM was published in the Federal Register
on November 17, 1994 (59 FR 59391). That Supplemental NPRM proposed to
retain the 500 hour repetitive inspections for wear required by the
current AD, but would require these inspections for
[[Page 29935]]
magnetos equipped with snap ring impulse coupling assemblies as well.
Since the issuance of that Supplemental NPRM, the FAA received
comments that serviceable riveted impulse couplings should be permitted
as replacement units as well as the snap ring design. The FAA
concurred, since there has been no production of riveted impulse
couplings since January 1992, distributors still have some left as this
was a common, relatively high use item. The FAA determined that it was
necessary to reopen the proposal for public comment, so a Supplemental
NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 16, 1995 (60 FR
53558). That Supplemental NPRM proposed to require replacement of worn
impulse couplings with serviceable impulse couplings of either riveted
or snap ring design.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. No comments were received since
publication of the last Supplemental NPRM.
Since the issuance of that Supplemental NPRM, the manufacturer has
advised the FAA that the cost for replacement of the impulse coupling
assembly has increased from $125 to $140. The economic analysis of this
final rule has been revised accordingly.
After careful review of the available data, the FAA has determined
that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the
rule with the changes described previously. The FAA has determined that
these changes will not increase the scope of the AD.
The FAA estimates that 130,000 magnetos installed on aircraft of
U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take
approximately 1 work hour, plus 1 work hour to change the impulse
coupling, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. The
average utilization of the fleet of these airplanes is estimated to be
evenly divided between commercial/commuter service and private owners.
The commercial/commuter service population is estimated to operate 500
hours time in service (TIS) per year; therefore the cost to perform the
inspections required by the AD will be approximately $3,900,000 per
year. The FAA estimates that private owners operate their aircraft
between 50 and 100 hours TIS per year; therefore it will take
approximately 5 to 10 years to reach 500 hours time in service. The
estimated cost for these owners will also be $3,900,000 spread over a
time period of 5 to 10 years or 780,000 per year for 5 years or
$390,000 for 10 years. The cost to replace the impulse coupling
assembly is $140 per magneto plus one work hour at $60 per work hour
for a total of $200 per magneto. While all the riveted impulse coupling
assemblies will eventually have to be replaced, it is not possible to
estimate the cost per year. The total cost for replacement for U.S.
operators is estimated to be $26,000,000.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air Transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing Amendment 39-4538 (48 FR
1482, January 13, 1983) and by adding a new airworthiness directive,
Amendment 39-9649, to read as follows:
96-12-07 Teledyne Continental Motors: Amendment 39-9649. Docket 93-
ANE-07. Supersedes AD 78-09-07 R3, Amendment 39-4538.
Applicability: Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) (formerly
Bendix) S-20, S-1200, D-2000, and D-3000 series magnetos equipped
with impulse couplings, installed on but not limited to
reciprocating engine powered aircraft manufactured by Beech, Cessna,
Mooney, and Piper.
Note 1: This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to each
magneto 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 magnetos that
have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of
the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use
the authority provided in paragraph (c) to request approval from the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This approval may address
either no action, if the current configuration eliminates the unsafe
condition, or different actions necessary to address the unsafe
condition described in this AD. Such a request should include an
assessment of the effect of the changed configuration on the unsafe
condition addressed by this AD. In no case does the presence of any
modification, alteration, or repair remove any magneto from the
applicability of this AD.
Note 2: The FAA has received reports of some confusion as to
what is meant by S-20, S-1200, D-2000, and D-3000 series magnetos as
referenced in TCM Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. MSB645, dated
April 4, 1994, and this airworthiness directive (AD). A typical
example is S6RN-25, where the S designates single type ignition unit
(a D designates a dual ignition unit), the 6 designates the number
of cylinders, the R designates right hand rotation, the N is the
manufacturer designation (this did not change when TCM purchased the
Bendix magneto product line), and the number after the dash
indicates the series (a -25 is a S-20 series magneto while a -3200
is a D-3000 series magneto, etc.).
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent magneto failure and subsequent engine failure,
accomplish the following:
(a) For magnetos with riveted or snap ring impulse coupling
assemblies, having less than 450 hours time in service (TIS) since
new, or overhaul, or since last inspection, on the effective date of
this AD, accomplish the following:
(1) Prior to the accumulation of 500 hours TIS since new, or
overhaul, or since last inspection, inspect riveted or snap ring
impulse coupling assemblies for wear, and replace, if necessary,
prior to further flight, with serviceable riveted or snap ring
impulse coupling assemblies, in accordance with the Detailed
Instructions of TCM MSB No. MSB645, dated April 4, 1994, and TCM SB
No. 639, dated March 1993.
(2) Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS since
the last inspection,
[[Page 29936]]
inspect riveted or snap ring impulse coupling assemblies for wear, and
replace, if necessary, prior to further flight, with serviceable
riveted or snap ring impulse coupling assemblies, in accordance with
the Detailed Instructions of TCM MSB No. MSB645, dated April 4, 1994,
and TCM SB No. 639, dated March 1993.
(b) For magnetos with riveted or snap ring impulse coupling
assemblies, having 450 or more hours TIS since new, or overhaul, or
since last inspection, on the effective date of this AD, or an
unknown TIS on the effective date of this AD, accomplish the
following:
(1) Within the next 50 hours TIS after the effective date of
this AD, inspect riveted or snap ring impulse coupling assemblies
for wear, and replace, if necessary, prior to further flight, with
serviceable riveted or snap ring impulse coupling assemblies in
accordance with the Detailed Instructions of TCM MSB No. MSB645,
dated April 4, 1994, and TCM SB No. 639, dated March 1993.
(2) Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS since
the last inspection, inspect riveted or snap ring impulse coupling
assemblies for wear, and replace, if necessary, prior to further
flight, with serviceable riveted or snap ring impulse coupling
assemblies, in accordance with the Detailed Instruction of TCM MSB
No. MSB645, dated April 4, 1994, and TCM SB No. 639, dated March
1993.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification
Office. The request should be forwarded through an appropriate FAA
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office.
Note: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this airworthiness directive,
if any, may be obtained from the Atlanta Aircraft Certification
Office.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(e) The actions required by this AD shall be done in accordance
with the following TCM service documents:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document No. Pages Revision Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSB No. MSB645................ 1-6 Original....... Apr. 4, 1994.
Total Pages: 6
SB No. 639.................... 1-2 Original....... Mar. 1993.
Total Pages: 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Teledyne Continental Motors, P.O.
Box 90, Mobile, AL 36601; telephone (334) 438-3411. Copies may be
inspected at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at
the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,
suite 700, Washington, DC.
(f) This amendment becomes effective on July 18, 1996.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 29, 1996.
Robert E. Guyotte,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 96-14869 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14868 Airworthiness Directives; AlliedSignal, Inc. (Formerly Textron Lycoming) LTS101 Series Turboshaft and LTP101 Series Turboprop Engines
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29932-29934]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14868]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-ANE-16; Amendment 39-9647; AD 96-12-05]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; AlliedSignal, Inc. (Formerly Textron
Lycoming) LTS101 Series Turboshaft and LTP101 Series Turboprop Engines
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to AlliedSignal, Inc.
[[Page 29933]]
(formerly Textron Lycoming) LTS101 series turboshaft and LTP101 series
turboprop engines, that requires identifying, removing, and replacing
certain defective power turbine rotors. This amendment is prompted by
reports of workmanship deficiencies on certain power turbine rotors
that can reduce the published life limit of the disk. The actions
specified by this AD are intended to prevent power turbine rotor
failure, which could result in loss of engine power.
DATES: Effective August 12, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of August 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from AlliedSignal Engines, 111 South 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ
85072; telephone (602) 365-2493, fax (602) 365-2210. This information
may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), New
England Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Keenan, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone (617)
238-7139, fax (617) 238-7199.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to AlliedSignal, Inc. (formerly
Textron Lycoming) LTS101 series turboshaft and LTP101 series turboprop
engines was published in the Federal Register on October 16, 1995 (60
FR 53548). That action proposed to require identifying, removing, and
replacing certain defective power turbine rotors in accordance with
Textron Lycoming Service Bulletins (SB's) No. LT101-72-50-0144, dated
January 15, 1993, and No. LT101-72-50-0145, dated November 27, 1991.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the
proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. The FAA
has determined that air safety and the public interest require the
adoption of the rule as proposed.
There are approximately 645 engines of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 430 engines installed on
aircraft of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will
take approximately 25 work hours per engine to accomplish the required
actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. The
manufacturer has advised the FAA that all required hardware will be
provided at no cost to the operators. Based on these figures, the total
cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $645,000.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 9.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-12-05 AlliedSignal, Inc.: Amendment 39-9647. Docket 95-ANE-16.
Applicability: AlliedSignal, Inc. (formerly Textron Lycoming)
LTS101 series turboshaft engines installed on, but not limited to,
the Eurocopter AS350 and SA366G1, Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm/
Kawasaki MBB-BK117 and the Bell Helicopter Textron 222 aircraft, and
LTP101 series turboprop engines, installed on but not limited to,
the Piaggio P166DL and Airtractor AT302 aircraft.
Note: This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to each engine
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 engines that have been
modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the
requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the
authority provided in paragraph (c) to request approval from the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This approval may address
either no action, if the current configuration eliminates the unsafe
condition, or different actions necessary to address the unsafe
condition described in this AD. Such a request should include an
assessment of the effect of the changed configuration on the unsafe
condition addressed by this AD. In no case does the presence of any
modification, alteration, or repair remove any engine from the
applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent power turbine rotor failure, which could result in
loss of engine power, accomplish the following:
(a) For all LTS101 series turboshaft engines except the LTS101-
750B2 model, and all LTP101 series turboprop engines, remove and
replace power turbine rotors identified in Table 1 of Textron
Lycoming Service Bulletin (SB) No. LT101-72-50-0144, dated January
15, 1993, in accordance with the accomplishment procedures in
Textron Lycoming SB No. LT101-72-50-0144, dated January 15, 1993,
and the following schedule:
(1) For power turbine rotors with more than 1,000 hours time
since new (TSN) on the effective date of this AD, remove and replace
within the next 50 hours time in service (TIS), not to exceed 1,800
cycles since new (CSN).
(2) For power turbine rotors with 1,000 hours TSN or less, but
more than 800 hours TSN on the effective date of this AD, remove and
replace within the next 100 hours TIS, not to exceed 1,800 CSN.
(3) For power turbine rotors with 800 hours TSN or less, but
more than 400 hours TSN on the effective date of this AD, remove and
replace within the next 150 hours TIS, not to exceed 1,800 CSN.
(4) For power turbine rotors with 400 hours TSN or less on the
effective date of this AD, remove and replace no later than 600
hours TSN, not to exceed 1,800 CSN.
[[Page 29934]]
(b) For all LTS101-750B2 model engines, remove and replace power
turbine rotors, in accordance with the accomplishment procedures of
Textron Lycoming SB No. LT101-72-50-0145 dated November 27, 1991,
within the next 100 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD,
or 800 hours TSN on the power turbine rotor, whichever occurs first.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Engine Certification Office. The
request should be forwarded through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Engine Certification Office.
Note: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this airworthiness directive,
if any, may be obtained from the Engine Certification Office.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(e) The actions required by this AD shall be done in accordance
with the following Textron Lycoming SB's:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document No. Pages Revision Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LT101-72-50-0144.............. 1-9 Original...... Jan. 15, 1993.
Total Pages: 9.
LT101-72-50-0145.............. 1-3 Original...... Nov. 27, 1991.
Total Pages: 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 AlliedSignal Engines, 111 South
34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85072; telephone (602) 365-2493, fax (602)
365-2210. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, New England Region,
Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, 12 New England Executive
Park, Burlington, MA; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800
North Capitol Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(f) This amendment becomes effective on August 12, 1996.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 29, 1996.
Robert E. Guyotte,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 96-14868 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14867 Airworthiness Directives; Teledyne Continental Motors and Rolls- Royce, plc O-200 Series Reciprocating Engines
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29931-29932]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14867]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 94-ANE-53; Amendment 39-9648; AD 96-12-06]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Teledyne Continental Motors and Rolls-
Royce, plc O-200 Series Reciprocating Engines
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes two existing airworthiness
directives (AD's), applicable to Teledyne Continental Motors and Rolls-
Royce, plc O-200 series reciprocating engines, that currently require
resetting engine timing to 24 deg. Before Top Center (BTC). This
amendment returns to the 28 deg. BTC engine timing for those engines
equipped with improved cylinders that have strengthened heads. In
addition, this amendment drops the TCM O-200C model which never went
into production. This amendment is prompted by the availability of
improved cylinders. The actions specified by this AD are intended to
prevent possible cylinder cracking with subsequent loss of engine
power.
DATES: Effective July 18, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of July 18, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Teledyne Continental Motors, P.O. Box 90, Mobile, AL
36601; telephone (334) 438-3411. This information may be examined at
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), New England Region, Office
of the Assistant Chief Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803-5299; or at the Office of the Federal Register,
800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Robinette, Aerospace Engineer,
Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
Campus Building, 1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 2-160, College Park, GA
30337-2748; telephone (404) 305-7371, fax (404) 305-7348.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding airworthiness
directive (AD) 77-13-03, Amendment 39-2925 (42 FR 31770, June 23,
1977), which is applicable to Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) O-200A,
O-200B, was published in the Federal Register on June 15, 1995 (60 FR
31421). That action proposed to retain the 24 deg. before top center
(BTC) engine timing for engines with cylinders that have part number
(P/N) lower than 641917; allow the return to 28 deg. BTC engine timing
for those engines with cylinder P/N 641917 and subsequent (higher) part
numbers, restamp the engine data plate to indicate engine timing of
28 deg. BTC; and drop the TCM O-200C series engines from the AD's
applicability. The actions must be accomplished in accordance with TCM
Service Bulletin (SB) No. SB94-8, dated September 14, 1994.
This AD also supersedes AD 78-19-02, Amendment 39-3301 (43 FR
41374, September 18, 1978), applicable to Rolls-Royce, plc (R-R) O-
200A, O-200B, and O-200C series engines, which also requires resetting
the engine timing to 24 deg.. This AD combines the TCM applicability of
AD 77-13-03 with the R-R applicability of AD 78-19-02 into one,
superseding AD.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment.
One commenter (the manufacturer) states that the timing adjustment
may be set to the limits of (+1 deg., -1 deg.). The NPRM incorrectly
limited the timing adjustment to (+1 deg., -0 deg.). The FAA concurs
and has revised this final rule accordingly.
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes described
previously. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of
the AD.
The FAA estimates that 23,500 engines installed on aircraft of U.S.
registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 2
work hours per engine to accomplish the required actions, and that the
average labor rate
[[Page 29932]]
is $60 per work hour. This AD adds no additional requirements; the
resetting of engine timing for engines with the improved cylinders is
optional. Therefore, there is no cost imposed by the required actions.
However, if the timing was reset on all applicable engines, based on
these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is
estimated to be $2,820,000.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air Transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing Amendment 39-2925 (42 FR
31770, June 23, 1977), and Amendment 39-3301 (43 FR 41374, September
18, 1978), and by adding a new airworthiness directive, Amendment 39-
9648, to read as follows:
96-12-06 Teledyne Continental Motors and Rolls-Royce, plc.:
Amendment 39-9648. Docket 94-ANE-53. Supersedes AD 77-13-03,
Amendment 39-2925 and AD 78-19-02, Amendment 39-3301.
Applicability: Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) Model O-200A
and O-200B and Rolls-Royce, plc. Model O-200A, O-200B, and O-200C
reciprocating engines. These engines are installed on but not
limited to American Champion Models 7ECA and 402; Cessna Model 150,
150A through 150M, A150K through A150M; Reims Models F-150G through
F-150M, FA-150K and FA-150L; and Taylorcraft Model F19 aircraft.
Note: This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to each engine
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 engines that have been
modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the
requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the
authority provided in paragraph (g) to request approval from the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This approval may address
either no action, if the current configuration eliminates the unsafe
condition, or different actions necessary to address the unsafe
condition described in this AD. Such a request should include an
assessment of the effect of the changed configuration on the unsafe
condition addressed by this AD. In no case does the presence of any
modification, alteration, or repair remove any engine from the
applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent possible cylinder cracking with subsequent loss of
engine power, accomplish the following:
(a) For engines that have one or more cylinders with part
numbers (P/N) lower than 641917, within the next 50 hours time in
service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD, reset the engine
timing to 24 deg. (+1 deg., -1 deg.) Before Top Center (BTC) on both
magnetos in accordance with the magneto to engine timing procedure
for direct drive engines in TCM Service Bulletin (SB) No. SB94-8,
dated September 14, 1994.
(b) For engines that have all four cylinders with P/N 641917 or
higher, the engine timing may be reset to 28 deg. (+1 deg., -1 deg.)
BTC on both magnetos in accordance with the magneto engine timing
procedure for direct drive engines in TCM SB No. SB94-8, dated
September 14, 1994.
(c) Subsequent installation of cylinders must be of the P/N
listed in paragraph (b) of this AD to retain the 28 deg. BTC timing.
Note: The P/N is stamped on the cylinder barrel flange.
(d) This AD supersedes AD 77-13-03 and AD 78-19-02.
(e) When paragraph (a) is accomplished, restamp the engine data
plate to indicate magneto timing of 24 deg. BTC.
(f) When paragraph (b) is accomplished, restamp the engine data
plate to indicate magneto timing of 28 deg. BTC.
(g) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification
Office. The request should be forwarded through an appropriate FAA
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office.
Note: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative method of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office.
(h) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to a location where the
requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(i) The actions required by this AD shall be done in accordance
with the following service bulletin:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document No. Pages Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCM SB No. SB94-8.................... 1-6 September 14, 1994.
Total pages: 6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Teledyne Continental Motors,
P.O. Box 90, Mobile, AL 36601; telephone (334) 438-3411. Copies may
be inspected at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at
the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,
suite 700, Washington, DC.
(j) This amendment becomes effective on July 18, 1996.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 29, 1996.
Robert E. Guyotte,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 96-14867 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14857 The Malibu-Newton Canyon Viticultural Area (95R-014P)
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29949-29952]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14857]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
27 CFR Part 9
RIN 1512-AA07
[TD ATF-375 ]
The Malibu-Newton Canyon Viticultural Area (95R-014P)
AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Department of the
Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule, Treasury decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule establishes a viticultural area in the State
of California to be known as ``Malibu-Newton Canyon.'' The petition for
this viticultural area was filed by Mr. George Rosenthal, President of
Rancho Escondido, Inc.
The ``Malibu-Newton Canyon'' viticultural area comprises
approximately 850 acres within Newton Canyon, a bowl-shaped valley
located on the south-facing side of the Santa Monica Mountains.
Vineyards currently within the proposed viticultural area are located
on the Rancho Escondido Estate. Rancho Escondido is comprised of
approximately 157 acres, all of which lie within the proposed area.
Approximately 14 of these acres are planted with premium wine producing
vineyards. Varietals include Cabernet Savignon, Merlot, Cabernet Franc,
Chardonnay and Petite Verdot. Currently, there are no wineries located
within the proposed ``Malibu-Newton Canyon'' area.
ATF believes that the establishment of viticultural area names as
appellations of origin in wine labeling and advertising allows wineries
to designate the specific areas where the grapes used to make the wine
were grown and enables consumers to better identify the wines they
purchase.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 13, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Brokaw, Wine, Beer and Spirits
Regulations Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 650
Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20226 (202-927-8230).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 23, 1978, ATF published Treasury Decision ATF-53 (43 FR
37672, 54624) revising regulations in 27 CFR Part 4. These regulations
allow the establishment of definitive viticultural areas. The
regulations allow the name of an approved viticultural area to be used
as an appellation of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements.
On October 2, 1979, ATF published Treasury Decision ATF-60 (44 FR
56692) which added a new Part 9 to 27 CFR, for the listing of approved
American viticultural areas.
Section 4.25a(e)(1), Title 27 CFR, defines an American viticultural
area as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by
geographical features, the boundaries of which have been delineated in
Subpart C of Part 9.
Section 4.25a(e)(2) outlines the procedure for proposing an
American viticultural area. Any interested person may petition ATF to
establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. The petition
should include:
(a) Evidence that the name of the proposed viticultural area is
locally and/or nationally known as referring to the area specified in
the petition;
(b) Historical or current evidence that the boundaries of the
viticultural area are as specified in the petition;
(c) Evidence relating to the geographical features (climate, soil,
elevation, physical features, etc.) which distinguish the viticultural
features of the proposed area from surrounding areas;
(d) A description of the specific boundaries of the viticultural
area, based on the features which can be found on United States
Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) maps of the largest applicable scale; and
(e) A copy of the appropriate U.S.G.S. map(s) with the boundaries
prominently marked.
Petition
ATF received a petition from Mr. George Rosenthal, President of
Rancho Escondido, Inc., proposing to establish a new viticultural
appellation in the Malibu area of Los Angeles County, California, to be
known as ``Malibu-Newton Canyon.'' The viticultural area, comprising
approximately 850 acres, is located within Newton Canyon which is a
bowl-shaped valley located on the south-facing side of the Santa Monica
Mountains. Vineyards currently within the viticultural area are located
on the Rancho Escondido Estate. Rancho Escondido is comprised of
approximately 157 acres, all of which lie within the ``Malibu-Newton
Canyon'' viticultural area. Approximately 14 of these acres are planted
with premium wine producing vineyards. Varietals include Cabernet
Savignon, Merlot, Cabernet Franc, Chardonnay and Petite Verdot.
Currently, there are no wineries located within the ``Malibu-Newton
Canyon'' viticultural area.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In response to Mr. George Rosenthal's petition, ATF published a
notice of proposed rulemaking, Notice No. 817, in the Federal Register
on December 22, 1995 [60 FR 66535], proposing the establishment of the
Malibu-Newton Canyon viticultural area. The notice requested comments
from all interested persons by February 20, 1996.
Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
ATF did not receive any letters of comment in response to Notice
No. 817.
[[Page 29950]]
Two letters of support from landowners located within the Malibu-Newton
Canyon viticultural area were received prior to issuing Notice No. 817.
Accordingly, this final rule establishes a Malibu-Newton Canyon
viticultural area with boundaries identical to those proposed in Notice
No. 817. The petition provides the following information as evidence
that the viticultural area meets the regulatory requirements discussed
previously.
Evidence That the Name of the Area Is Locally or Nationally Known
According to the petitioner, the origin of the name Malibu comes
from the ancient Chumash Indian word MALA I BOO, meaning ``Place on the
Cliff,'' and was the name of an Indian village just beyond Malibu
Beach. After the Spaniards took control of southern California, the
encompassing Chumash ranchera UMALIBO became known as the Malibu
Rancho. A Spanish settler, Jose Bartolome Tapia gained control of the
rancho and was later granted the land by the Governor of the
Californias. The present day spelling appears on the name of the
Topanga Malibu Sequit grant dated July 12, 1805. It originally totalled
13,315 acres, one of the largest southern California Ranchos at that
time.
The petitioner further states that throughout the 19th century,
Rancho Malibu changed hands many times but remained intact. Until the
construction of the Pacific Coast Highway in the 1930's, the privacy of
Rancho Malibu had not been invaded. With the burgeoning economy of
southern California, conditions greatly changed. This historic rancho
was finally subdivided during the same decade. Following soon after,
the famous Malibu Beach Colony was established where movie stars and
industry moguls began constructing their homes. The Malibu area then
quickly developed into the highly recognized community of Los Angeles
as it is known today.
Throughout this region there exists topography in the form of
roads, a creek, a lake, a canyon, a beach, hiking trails, parks,
vistas, etc. which denote the name ``Malibu.'' The region lying roughly
from the ridge line of the Santa Monica Mountains to the ocean, and
from Topanga Canyon to the Ventura County line is commonly known as
Malibu, according to the petitioner. While the city of Malibu was
incorporated in 1992, the entire surrounding area described above
continues to be recognized as Malibu. ``Malibu'' could be applied to
any of the hills/mountains which drain toward the ocean through the
city of Malibu, including Newton Canyon, the location of the
viticultural area.
The petitioner provided a 1:250,000 scale Topographic-Bathymetric
map of Los Angeles to document the use of the name, ``Malibu.'' An
article in the October 15, 1994, issue of the ``Wine Spectator,''
entitled ``A Vineyard Grows in Malibu Canyon,'' refers to the area
around ``The Malibu Estate'' (Rancho Escondido, Inc.) as ``Malibu
Hills.'' Also, included as an exhibit was a copy of an article from,
``The Underground Wine Journal,'' 1994, entitled, ``Distinctive New
Wines.'' This article refers to ``The Malibu Estate'' as being located
``in the hills above Malibu.''
According to the petitioner, the name ``Newton Canyon'' is
generally known as describing the specific area in which the
viticultural area is located. This is evidenced by the name of the main
street running through the viticultural area-- ``Newton Canyon Road.''
In addition, maps of the area, including the U.S.G.S. map referenced
and shown within the petition, label the area as, ``Newton Canyon.''
The petitioner states that, ``Newton Canyon alone is not descriptive
enough to describe the general location of the viticultural area, and
further, might possibly cause public confusion in relation to Newton
Vineyards, located in the Napa Valley.'' Therefore, the petitioner
proposed the name, ``Malibu-Newton Canyon.''
Historical or Current Evidence that the Boundaries of the Viticultural
Area Are As Specified in The Petition
The boundaries of the ``Malibu-Newton Canyon'' viticultural area
follow the natural ridge lines which define Newton Canyon and are
delineated on the U.S.G.S. Point Dume, California, quadrangle map.
Newton Canyon is a bowl-shaped valley located on the south-facing
side of the Santa Monica Mountains, in the Malibu area of Los Angeles
County. The canyon is oriented along an east-west axis. The valley
floor lies at an elevation of approximately 1,400 feet. The surrounding
ridgeline ranges in elevation from 1,800-2,100 feet on the southern
ocean side of the canyon, continuing to 2,100-2,800 feet on the high
side of the canyon to the north.
According to the petitioner, the elevation of the southern rim of
the canyon is low enough to allow evening fog to sift into the valley,
but high enough to keep out the marine layer that shrouds much of the
coastline throughout the daytime. The northern rim of the canyon joins
the crest of the Santa Monica Mountains that divides oceanside from
leeside. Lying at the eastern most side of the canyon, Castro Peak is
another distinguishing feature which marks one of the highest points in
the Santa Monica Mountains at 2,824 feet.
The petitioner further states that approximately two-thirds of the
surrounding Malibu area contains slopes greater than 25 percent, with
only one-fifth having relatively level terrain. Throughout the past
several decades, most of the usable land in the Malibu area has been
developed. Because of increasingly high land prices, very little of the
land in the general Malibu area is still used for agriculture. The
Santa Monica Mountains also have thousands of acres dedicated to State
and national parks, with more acreage being aggressively acquired by
public conservation agencies.
Evidence Relating to the Geographical Features (Climate, Soil,
Elevation, Physical Features, etc.) Which Distinguish the Viticultural
Features of the Area From Surrounding Areas
Climate
Based upon a 1994 climate study completed by Fox Weather, Oxnard,
California, the petitioner asserts the following: The general climate
of the Malibu area is typical of southern California with mild, rainy
winters, and warm, dry summers. However, there are several
climatological factors which distinguish the ``Malibu-Newton Canyon''
viticultural area from the surrounding region.
While summer temperatures often exceed 80 degrees in the afternoon,
cooling ocean breezes flow into the valley in the evening, according to
the petitioner. Moreover, during the evening and early morning a light
fog often filters into the valley and settles along the slopes,
creating a unique microclimate which is significantly cooler than the
surrounding inland areas. Typically, the morning sun shines through the
fog, which in turn is swept out by warm winds and high daytime
temperatures. The valley enjoys southern exposure to the sun throughout
the afternoon. According to the petitioner, these conditions are ideal
for premium grape growing.
Because of its high elevation and orientation, the viticultural
area does not experience the constantly overcast skies and cooler
temperatures of the coastal region immediately below.
Newton Canyon, within which the viticultural area is located, is a
unique pocket protected from marine influence. The coastline near sea
level is a more temperate climate controlled by marine stratus with
uniformly cold
[[Page 29951]]
temperatures, fog and low clouds. This cooler and more humid coastal
environment, mainly affecting areas below the 1,300 foot level, can
create grape rot and delay maturation.
The petitioner claims that the ``Malibu-Newton Canyon''
viticultural area is, in the daytime, a sunny warm oasis for a coastal
location. The area is located at an elevation which lies just at the
bottom of the inversion layer and just at the top of the marine layer.
Typically, the marine layer ceiling is approximately 1,400 feet on
average. The southern or bottom rim of the canyon acts as a barrier to
the marine layer, preventing the bulk of the coastal fog and low clouds
from penetrating the valley for extended periods of time. This allows
the ``Malibu-Newton Canyon'' viticultural area to enjoy favorable
cooling effects of the Pacific ocean and have the warm sunny daytime
temperatures found in the adjacent interior valleys.
Nearby inland areas experience uniformly hot summer temperatures
similar to those experienced in the upper elevations on the oceanside
of the Santa Monica Mountains. However, these inland areas receive
little or no fog and much less precipitation than the oceanside regime,
according to the petitioner.
An additional distinctive aspect is an increasing amount of
precipitation with increasing elevation. The petitioner states that
upland weather stations report practically twice the mean precipitation
of the nearby lowland stations. Furthermore, the greatest monthly
precipitation during the rainy season is from 1.5 to 3.0 times as great
as that for the lowland stations. Precipitation is concentrated in the
winter months. The average annual rainfall is about 24 inches, with
approximately 12 percent occurring from the months of April to October.
The viticultural area experiences typical low temperatures in the
winter time, just above freezing temperatures. Infrequent winter
freezes have been known to occur during the dormant winter growing
cycle.
In summary, the petitioner states that the viticultural area is
characterized by an isolated microclimate that captures the favorable
climatic conditions necessary for premium wine grape growing. In
contrast, the petitioner states that the surrounding areas found on the
oceanside of the Santa Monica Mountains (i.e, Malibu, Oxnard, Santa
Monica) are uniformly cool and overcast. Surrounding inland areas found
on the leeside of the Santa Monica Mountains (i.e, Thousand Oaks,
Agoura, Woodland Hills) are uniformly hot and dry. The petitioner
provided a diagram illustrating the ``Malibu-Newton Canyon''
microclimate and a November 29, 1994, ``CLIMATOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR
RANCHO ESCONDIDO VINEYARDS,'' by Alan D. Fox of Fox Weather.
Physical Features
According to the petitioner, the primary distinction of the
viticultural area is its unique combination of shape, elevation,
orientation and relative location to the marine influences of the
Pacific Ocean. The viticultural area lies within a clearly defined
valley with a ``bowl'' shape resting high on the oceanside of the Santa
Monica Mountains. These physical features create a pocket which harbors
the distinct microclimatic described above. The petitioner provided
aerial photos to illustrate these physical features.
Drainage
All of the viticultural area drains into Newton Canyon Creek,
continuing to Zuma Creek which then drains into the Pacific Ocean at
Point Dume's westward beach, according to the petitioner.
Soils
As evidence of soil types, the petitioner provided a 1994 soils
study completed by Soil & Plant Laboratory, Inc., Orange, California,
in addition to ``Soils of the Malibu Area California'' published by the
Soil Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
According to this information, major soils within the viticultural
area range from loam to clay loam in texture. Subsoil texture ranges
from clay loam to clay. Current plantings are mainly on Castaic and
Rincon silty clay loams and Malibu loam which are lower elevation
terrace soils that are moderately deep, with favorable Capability Class
ratings of II to IV. Steeper hillside soils (mostly above the 1,700
foot contour line) are shallower with Capability Class ratings ranging
from IV to VIII.
Soils in the viticultural area have moderate to high inherent
fertility. Soil reaction in surface soils ranges from moderately acid
to slightly alkaline. Subsoil ph varies with type and several areas are
calcareous.
According to the petitioner, soil tests performed prior to the
planting of vineyards in 1988 revealed that the topsoil found in much
of lower Newton Canyon contained crushed rock, as a result of the
construction of the nearby Kanan Dume Road tunnel, which is ideal for
good drainage.
The surrounding areas are mainly steep hillsides and mountainous
uplands with poor soil capability. These soils are usually shallower
than those found in the viticultural area, and are subject to erosion.
Boundary
The boundary of the ``Malibu-Newton Canyon'' viticultural area may
be found on one United States Geological Survey map, entitled Point
Dume Quadrangle, California, 7.5 minute series, with a scale of
1:24,000.
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this regulation is not a significant
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. Accordingly,
this proposal is not subject to the analysis required by this executive
order.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
It is hereby certified that this regulation will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The establishment of a viticultural area is neither an endorsement nor
approval by ATF of the quality of wine produced in the area, but rather
an identification of an area that is distinct from surrounding areas.
ATF believes that the establishment of viticultural areas merely allows
wineries to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to
consumers, and helps consumers identify the wines they purchase. Thus,
any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name is the
result of the proprietor's own efforts and consumer acceptance of wines
from that area.
Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required
because this final rule is not expected (1) to have significant
secondary, or incidental effects on a substantial number of small
entities; or (2) to impose, or otherwise cause a significant increase
in the reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance burdens on a
substantial number of small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.
96-511, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR
Part 1320, do not apply to this rulemaking because no requirement to
collect information is proposed.
Drafting Information
The principal author of this document is David Brokaw, Wine, Beer
and Spirits Regulations Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms.
[[Page 29952]]
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Administrative practices and procedures, Consumer protection,
Viticultural areas, and Wine.
Authority and Issuance
Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 9, American
Viticultural Areas, is amended as follows:
PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS
Par. 1. The authority citation for Part 9 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas
Par. 2. Subpart C is amended by adding Sec. 9.152 to read as
follows:
* * * * *
Sec. 9.152 Malibu-Newton Canyon.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this
petition is ``Malibu-Newton Canyon.''
(b) Approved maps. The appropriate map for determining the boundary
of the Malibu-Newton Canyon viticultural area is the U.S.G.S. map,
``Point Dume Quadrangle, California'' (7.5 Minute Series 1:24,000
Topographic map, photorevised 1981).
(c) Boundary. The Malibu-Newton Canyon viticultural area is located
in Los Angeles County, California. The boundary is as follows:
(1) Beginning at the intersection of the Newton Canyon creek
(lowest elevation) and an unnamed medium duty road referred to by the
petitioner as Kanan Dume Road at the boundary of section 13 and 18 on
the U.S.G.S. map ``Point Dume Quadrangle.''
(2) Then south along Kanan Dume Road to the point where an unnamed,
unimproved dirt road referred to by the petitioner as Ramerez Mountain
Way crosses over Kanan Dume Road at the tunnel in the northwest corner
of section 19.
(3) Then east along Ramerez Mountain Way, following the southern
ridgeline of Newton Canyon, to Latigo Canyon Road in the southwest
corner of section 17.
(4) Then south along Latigo Canyon Road to an unnamed, unimproved
dirt road referred to by the petitioner as Newton Mountain Way at the
southern boundary of section 17.
(5) Then northeast along Newton Mountain Way, following the
southeastern ridgeline of Newton Canyon, to an unnamed, unimproved dirt
road referred to by the petitioner as Castro Mountain Way in section
16.
(6) Then west along Castro Mountain Way, past Castro Peak,
following the northern ridgeline of Newton Canyon to Latigo Canyon Road
in section 18.
(7) Then southwest along the natural ridgeline of Newton Canyon to
the intersection of Kanan Dume Road and the 1,600 foot contour line in
the southeastern portion of section 13.
(8) Then southeasterly along Kanan Dume Road to the beginning
point.
Signed: May 7, 1996.
Bradley C. Buckles,
Acting Director.
Approved: May 24, 1996.
John P. Simpson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Regulatory, Tariff and Trade Enforcement).
[FR Doc. 96-14857 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14856 Technical Amendments
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29956-29957]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14856]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
27 CFR Part 200
[T.D. 374]
RIN 1512-AB56
Technical Amendments
AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule, Treasury decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Treasury decision changes the titles Regional Regulatory
Administrator and Regional Director (Compliance) to District Director.
All changes are to provide clarity and uniformity throughout title 27
Code of Federal Regulations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 13, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie F. Cox, Tax Compliance Branch,
650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20226, (202-927-8220).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
(ATF) administers regulations published in chapter I of title 27 Code
of Federal Regulations. Upon reviewing title 27 for the annual
revision, ATF determined that the regulations in part 200 should be
revised to reflect the ATF field structure reorganization that
established District Directors in place of the Regional Directors
(Compliance) (formerly Regional Regulatory Administrators).
These amendments do not make any substantive changes and are only
intended to improve the clarity of title 27.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law
96-511, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR
part 1320, do not apply to this final rule because there are no
recordkeeping or reporting requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule,
the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
does not apply.
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this rule is not a significant
regulatory action because it will not, (1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way
the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs,
the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal
governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
Executive Order 12866.
Administrative Procedures Act
Because this final rule merely makes technical amendments and
conforming changes to improve the clarity of the regulations, it is
unnecessary to issue this final rule with notice and public procedure
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
Drafting Information
The principal author of this document is Julie F. Cox, Tax
Compliance Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR 200
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations.
Authority and Issuance
Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 200--RULES OF PRACTICE IN PERMIT PROCEEDINGS
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 200 continues to read
as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805, 27 U.S.C. 204.
Part 200--[AMENDED]
Par. 3. Section 200.5 is amended by removing the definition of
``Regional
[[Page 29957]]
regulatory administrator'', adding the definition ``District
director'', and by revising the following terms to read as follows:
* * * * *
Attorney for the Government. The Attorney in the office of the
Chief Counsel (assigned to the National or district office) authorized
to represent the district director in the proceeding.
* * * * *
District director. The principal ATF district official responsible
for administering the regulations in this part.
* * * * *
Initial decision. The decision of the district director or
administrative law judge in a proceeding on the suspension, revocation
or annulment of a permit.
* * * * *
Par. 4. Remove the phrase ``regional director (compliance)'' each
place it appears and add, in place thereof, the phrase ``district
director'' in the following sections:
(a) Section 200.25;
(b) Section 200.27;
(c) Section 200.29;
(d) Section 200.31;
(e) Section 200.35;
(f) Section 200.36;
(g) Section 200.37;
(h) Section 200.38;
(i) Section 200.45;
(j) Section 200.46;
(k) Section 200.48;
(l) Section 200.49;
(m) Section 200.49a;
(n) Section 200.49b;
(o) Section 200.55(a);
(p) Section 200.57;
(q) Section 200.59;
(r) Section 200.60(a), (b) and (c);
(s) Section 200.61;
(t) Section 200.62;
(u) Section 200.63;
(v) Section 200.64(a), (b) and (c);
(w) Section 200.65;
(x) Section 200.70;
(y) Section 200.71;
(z) Section 200.72;
(aa) Section 200.73;
(bb) Section 200.75;
(cc) Section 200.78;
(dd) Section 200.79(b);
(ee) Section 200.80;
(ff) Section 200.85;
(gg) Section 200.95;
(hh) Section 200.105;
(ii) Section 200.106;
(jj) Section 200.107;
(kk) Section 200.107a;
(ll) Section 200.108;
(mm) Section 200.109;
(nn) Section 200.110;
(oo) Section 200.115;
(pp) Section 200.116;
(qq) Section 200.117;
(rr) Section 200.126;
(ss) Section 200.129.
Par. 5. Before Sec. 200.107 the undesignated section heading is
amended by removing the words ``Regional Director (Compliance)'' and
adding the words ``District Director'' in place thereof.
Sec. 200.27 [Amended]
Par. 6. Section 200.27 heading is amended by removing the words
``regional director (compliance)'' and adding the words ``district
director'' in place thereof.
Sec. 200.107a [Amended]
Par. 7. Section 200.107a heading is revised by removing the words
``Regional director's'' and adding the words ``District director's'' in
place thereof.
Signed: May 17, 1996.
Bradley A. Buckles,
Acting Director.
Approved: May 24, 1996.
John P. Simpson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Regulatory, Tariff and Trade Enforcement).
[FR Doc. 96-14856 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14855 Statement of Procedural Rules
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29954-29956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14855]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
27 CFR Parts 70 and 71
[T.D. ATF-378; CRT 93-137]
RIN 1512-AB53
Statement of Procedural Rules
AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), Department of
the Treasury.
ACTION: Treasury Decision, final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Treasury decision removes regulations in 27 CFR Part 71,
Statement of Procedural Rules, which are duplicated in 31 CFR Part 1,
Disclosure of Records. It also transfers certain regulations from 27
CFR Part 71 to 27 CFR Part 70, resulting in the elimination of Part 71.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective August 12, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Bryce, Tax Compliance Branch,
(202-927-8220) or Eric O'Neal, Disclosure Branch, (202-927-8480),
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20226.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 21, 1995, President Clinton announced a regulatory
reform initiative. As part of this initiative, each Federal agency was
instructed to conduct a page by page review of all agency regulations
to identify those which are obsolete or burdensome and those whose
goals could be better achieved through the private sector, self-
regulation or state and local governments. In cases where the agency's
review disclosed regulations which should be revised or eliminated, the
agency would, as soon as possible, propose administrative changes to
its regulations.
The page by page review of all regulations was completed as
directed by the President. In addition, on April 13, 1995, the Bureau
published Notice No. 809 (60 FR 18783) in the Federal Register
requesting comments from the public regarding which ATF regulations
could be improved or eliminated. As a result of the Bureau's analysis
of its regulations and the public comments received, a number of
regulatory initiatives were developed which are intended to accomplish
the President's goals.
Pursuant to the President's directive, ATF reviewed 27 CFR part 71,
Statement of Procedural Rules. ATF determined that there were
regulations in part 71 which were largely duplicative of regulations
found in 31 CFR part 1, Disclosure of Records. ATF also decided that
certain regulations in part 71 should be transferred to 27 CFR part 70,
Procedure and Administration, since they were related to the subject
matter of part 70.
Part 71 deals primarily with the procedures for the disclosure of
records and the publication of rules, regulations, forms, and
instructions. ATF has determined that the information contained in
sections 71.21, 71.22, 71.23, 71.24, and 71.25 is largely duplicative
of information already contained in 31 CFR part 1. Part 1 contains the
regulations of the Department of Treasury concerning disclosure of
records, and provides Appendices specifically relating to the component
Bureaus of the Treasury Department, including ATF.
ATF has decided that it is unnecessary to provide identical
information regarding the disclosure of records in two separate titles
of the Code of Federal Regulations. Thus, we are removing sections
71.21--71.25 and Appendix A. So that users of Title 27 will know where
to look for the ATF regulations on disclosure of records, we have added
a new section which cross-references the disclosure regulations of the
Department of Treasury. The new section also informs the public that
inquiries regarding the disclosure of ATF records may be directed to
the Chief, Disclosure Branch. The appendix in 31 CFR part 1 relating to
ATF will be updated to reflect the locations where the public may
inspect and copy ATF documents.
Certain sections within part 71 contain information which is not
found in 31 CFR part 1. Section 71.26 provides rules for disclosure of
certain specified matters relating to ATF. Section 71.27 explains the
procedures for requesting or demanding disclosure of records or
information in testimony or related matters. Section 71.41 explains the
procedures for issuing rules and regulations. Section 71.42 deals with
the issuance of forms and instructions. All of these sections will be
moved to 27 CFR part 70, since they relate to procedure and
administration. In addition, the pertinent sections in part 70 relating
to the scope of the part, and the definitions of terms used in the
part, are amended to reflect the new sections incorporated from part
71.
As a result of these changes, part 71 will be removed from the Code
of Federal Regulations. Certain other minor technical changes have been
made to the regulations which have been redesignated in this final
rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law
96-511, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR
Part 1320, do not apply to this final rule because no requirement to
collect information is imposed.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act relating to a
final regulatory flexibility analysis (5 U.S.C. 604) are not applicable
to this final rule because the agency was not required to
[[Page 29955]]
publish a notice of proposed rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other
law.
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this rule is not a significant
regulatory action, because (1) it will not have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way
the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs,
the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal
governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
Executive Order 12866.
Administrative Procedure Act
Because this final rule merely makes technical amendments and
conforming changes to improve the clarity of the regulations, and
removes information found elsewhere in the regulations, it is
unnecessary to issue this Treasury decision with notice and public
procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
Drafting Information
The principal author of this document is Nancy Bryce, Tax
Compliance Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 70
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations,
Claims, Customs duties and inspection, Disaster assistance, Excise
taxes, Freedom of information, Government employees, Law enforcement,
Law enforcement officers, Privacy.
Authority and Issuance
Chapter I of title 27, Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
Part 70--PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for Part 70 continues to read
as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301 and 552; 26 U.S.C. 4181, 4182, 5064,
5146, 5203, 5207, 5275, 5367, 5415, 5504, 5555, 5684(a), 5741,
5761(b), 5802, 6020, 6021, 6064, 6102, 6155, 6159, 6201, 6203, 6204,
6301, 6303, 6311, 6313, 6314, 6321, 6323, 6325, 6326, 6331-6343,
6401-6404, 6407, 6416, 6423, 6501-6503, 6511, 6513, 6514, 6532,
6601, 6602, 6611, 6621, 6622, 6651, 6653, 6656, 6657, 6658, 6665,
6671, 6672, 6701, 6723, 6801, 6862, 6863, 6901, 7011, 7101, 7102,
7121, 7122, 7207, 7209, 7214, 7304, 7401, 7403, 7406, 7423, 7424,
7425, 7426, 7429, 7430, 7432, 7502, 7503, 7505, 7506, 7513, 7601-
7606, 7608-7610, 7622, 7623, 7653, 7805.
Secs. 71.26, 71.27, 71.41 and 71.42 [Redesignated]
Par. 2-3. Sections 71.26, 71.27, 71.41 and 71.42 are redesignated
as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New
Old section section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
71.26........................................................ 70.802
71.27........................................................ 70.803
71.41........................................................ 70.701
71.42........................................................ 70.702
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Par. 4. Section 70.1 is amended by adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to
read as follows:
Sec. 70.1 General.
* * * * *
(e) The regulations in Subpart H of this part relate to rules,
regulations and forms. The most important rules are issued as Treasury
decisions. This subpart also applies to the development and
availability of tax return forms and instructions and other forms and
instructions.
(f) The regulations in Subpart I of this part relate to the
disclosure of matters such as accepted offers in compromise,
applications for permits, certificates of label approval, true
identities of companies authorized to use trade names, information
relating to the tax classification of a roll of tobacco wrapped in
reconstituted tobacco, and comments received in response to a notice of
proposed rulemaking. This subpart also applies to requests or demands
for disclosure in testimony and in related matters.
Par. 5. Section 70.11 is amended by adding two definitions in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 70.11 Meaning of Terms
* * * * *
Delegate. Any officer, employee, or agency of the Department of the
Treasury authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury directly, or
indirectly by one or more redelegations of authority, to perform the
function mentioned or described in the delegation order.
* * * * *
Secretary. The Secretary of the Treasury or designated delegate.
* * * * *
Par. 6. 27 CFR Part 70 is amended by adding a heading for Subpart
H, immediately preceding the redesignated Sec. 70.701, to read as
follows:
Subpart H--Rules, Regulations and Forms
Par. 7. The newly redesignated Sec. 70.701 is amended by revising
the first sentence of paragraph (a)(1), the first sentence in paragraph
(d)(1) and the ninth sentence in paragraph (d)(1), removing the last
sentence in paragraph (d)(1), and removing the last sentence in
paragraph (d)(2)(i)(B) to read as follows.
Sec. 70.701 Rules and regulations.
(a) Formulation. (1) Alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives
rules take various forms. * * *
* * * * *
(d) Publication of rules and regulations. (1) General. All Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms regulations and amendments thereto are
published as Treasury Decisions which appear in the Federal Register,
the Code of Federal Regulations, and the quarterly Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms (ATF) Bulletin. * * * The Bulletin is published quarterly and
may be obtained, on a subscription basis, from the Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
* * * * *
Par. 8. The newly redesignated Sec. 70.702 is amended by revising
the first sentence of paragraph (a) to read as follows.
Sec. 70.702 Forms and instructions.
(a) Tax return forms and instructions. Tax forms and instructions
are developed by the Bureau to explain the requirements of Chapters 32,
51, 52, and 53 of Title 26 of the United States Code or regulations
issued thereunder, and are issued for the assistance of taxpayers in
exercising their rights and discharging their duties under such laws
and regulations. * * *
* * * * *
Par. 9 . A new section 70.801 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 70.801 Publicity of information.
For information relating to the disclosure of records that is not
contained in this Subpart I, see 31 CFR Part 1 and the Appendix of that
Part relating to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Direct
further questions to the Chief, Disclosure Branch, Washington, DC
20226, (202) 927-8480.
Par. 10. 27 CFR Part 70 is amended by adding a heading for Subpart
I, immediately preceding the new Sec. 70.801, to read as follows:
Subpart I--Disclosure
[[Page 29956]]
Par. 11. The newly redesignated Sec. 70.802 is amended by revising
the first sentence in paragraph (a), the first and third sentences in
paragraph (d), the first sentence in paragraph (f) and the second and
last sentences in paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 70.802 Rules for disclosure of certain specified matters.
(a) Accepted offers in compromise. For each offer in compromise
submitted and accepted pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7122 in any case arising
under Chapter 32 (relating to firearms and ammunition excise taxes) and
Subtitle E (relating to alcohol, tobacco, and certain other excise
taxes) of Title 26 of the United States Code, under section 107 of the
Federal Alcohol Administration Act (27 U.S.C. 207) in any case arising
under that Act, or in connection with property seized under Title I of
the Gun Control Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C., Chapter 44) or title XI of the
Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (18 U.S.C., Chapter 40), a copy of
the abstract and statement relating to the offer shall be kept
available for public inspection, for a period of 1 year from the date
of acceptance, in the office of the regional director (compliance) who
received the offer and in the office of the Assistant Director (Liaison
and Public Information), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
Washington, DC 20226. * * *
(d) Information relating to certificates of label approval for
distilled spirits, wine, and malt beverages. Upon written request, the
Chief, Alcohol and Tobacco Programs Division, Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms, Washington, DC 20226, shall furnish information
as to the issuance, pursuant to section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol
Administration Act (27 U.S.C. 205(e)) and Part 4, 5, or 7 of this
chapter, of certificates of label approval, or of exemption from label
approval, for distilled spirits, wine, or malt beverages. * * * The
person making the request may obtain reproductions or certified copies
of such certificates upon payment of the established fees prescribed by
31 CFR 1.7. * * *
* * * * *
(f) Information relating to the tax classification of a roll of
tobacco wrapped in reconstituted tobacco. Upon written request, the
Deputy Associate Director (Regulatory Enforcement Programs), Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Washington, DC 20226, shall furnish
information as to a Bureau determination of the tax classification of a
roll of tobacco wrapped in reconstituted tobacco. * * *
(g) Comments received in response to a notice of proposed
rulemaking. * * * Comments may be inspected in the Disclosure Branch,
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Washington, DC 20226. * * *
The provisions of 31 CFR 1.7, relating to fees, apply with respect to
requests made in accordance with this paragraph.
PART 71--STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL RULES-- [REMOVED]
Par. 12. 27 CFR Part 71 is removed.
Signed: May 20, 1996.
John W. Magaw,
Director.
Approved: May 24, 1996.
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Regulatory, Tariff and Trade Enforcement).
[FR Doc. 96-14855 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14854 Extension Of The Paso Robles Viticultural Area (93F-026T)
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29952-29954]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14854]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
27 CFR Part 9
[T.D. ATF-377; Ref: Notice No. 818, T.D. ATF-148]
RIN 1512-AA07
Extension Of The Paso Robles Viticultural Area (93F-026T)
AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), Department of
Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule. Treasury decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule extends the western border of the Paso Robles
viticultural area in San Luis Obispo County, California. This extension
will include vineyard land similar to land in the current Paso Robles
viticultural area which was established on October 4, 1983, by the
issuance of Treasury Decision ATF-148 (48 FR 45241). This extension of
the western border adds approximately 52,618 acres, of which 235 acres
are being planted to vineyards.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 12, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Lou Blake, Wine, Beer, and
Spirits Regulations Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20226 (202-927-8210).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 23, 1978, ATF published Treasury Decision ATF-53 (43 FR
37672, 54624) revising regulations in 27 CFR Part 4. These regulations
allow the establishment of definitive American viticultural areas. The
regulations allow the name of an approved viticultural area to be used
as an appellation of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements.
On October 2, 1979, ATF published Treasury Decision ATF-60 (44 FR
56692) which added a new Part 9 to 27 CFR, for the listing of approved
American viticultural areas.
Section 4.25a(e)(1), Title 27 CFR, defines an American viticultural
area as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by
geographical features, the boundaries of which have been delineated in
Subpart C of Part 9.
Section 4.25a(e)(2) outlines the procedure for proposing an
American viticultural area. Any interested person may petition ATF to
establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. The petition
should include:
(a) Evidence that the name of the proposed viticultural area is
locally and/or nationally known as referring to the area specified in
the petition;
(b) Historical or current evidence that the boundaries of the
viticultural area are as specified in the petition;
(c) Evidence relating to the geographical features (climate, soil,
elevation, physical features, etc.) which distinguish the viticultural
features of the proposed area from surrounding areas;
(d) A description of the specific boundaries of the viticultural
area, based on the features which can be found on United States
Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) maps of the largest applicable scale; and
(e) A copy of the appropriate U.S.G.S. map with the boundaries
prominently marked.
Petition
The original petition to extend the western border of the Paso
Robles viticultural area was filed in July 1993, by Justin C. Baldwin
as spokesperson for his own vineyard and winery and for five other
vineyards in the area. All of the vineyards and the winery, which are
located outside the western border of the current Paso Robles
viticultural area, were established after the original Paso Robles
viticultural area was approved. At the time Mr. Baldwin submitted his
petition additional information was still needed to complete the
petition. Until the additional information could be obtained, the
original petition was returned to Mr. Baldwin.
July Ackerman, Executive Director of the Paso Robles Vintners and
Growers Association, later resubmitted the petition in December 1994.
Ms. Ackerman, in her official role as Executive Director, along with
members of the Paso Robles Vintners and Growers Association, supported
the extension. The petition also included the names of 71 people in the
grape and wine
[[Page 29953]]
industries who supported the expansion area.
Ms. Ackerman stated the expansion area has always been considered a
part of the Paso Robles Wine Country. In fact, the petition noted that
the expansion area was included in the original petition but was
removed due to a petition involving a contiguous area. The expansion
area is between the boundaries set forth in these two petitions. In
1989 the Paso Robles Chamber of Commerce published ``A History and Tour
Guide of the Paso Robles Wine Country.'' Included in this publication
was one of the vineyards and wineries located in the expansion area. As
noted, the expansion area was also originally included in the petition
for the current Paso Robles viticultural area. However, a concurrent
petition was being considered for the York Mountain viticultural area
and to prevent any intrusion into York Mountain the petitioner for Paso
Robles amended the southwestern border. At the same time, the western
boundary was amended to begin at the next most eastern range line. At
the time of this amendment, no vineyards had been established in the
area beyond the amended western boundary.
The expanded western border of the Paso Robles viticultural area
will continue to maintain a southwestern border adjacent to York
Mountain's northern border. This expansion would add approximately
52,618 acres to the existing viticultural area. Since the final rule
for the Paso Robles viticultural area was published in 1983, seven
vineyards have been planted in the expansion area.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In response to Ms. Ackerman's petition, ATF published a notice of
proposed rulemaking, Notice No. 818, in the Federal Register on January
10, 1996 (61 FR 706), proposing the extension of the western border.
This notice requested comments from all interested persons. Written
comments were to be received on or before April 9, 1996. No comments
were received in response to Notice No. 818.
Historical and Current Evidence
The name of the area comes from the Spanish name ``El Paso de
Robles'' (meaning ``the Pass of the Oaks''), which was given to the
area by travelers between the missions of San Miguel and San Luis
Obispo. A land grant, in this name, was conveyed by Governor
Micheltorena to Pedro Narvaez on May 12, 1844. This land grant included
the present area of Paso Robles, Templeton, and Adelaida.
Historically, the Santa Lucia Mountain range has been known as the
western border of the Paso Robles area. All seven of the vineyards
planted since 1983 are located east of the Santa Lucia Mountain Range,
just beyond the western border of the current Paso Robles Viticultural
area and north of the York Mountain viticultural area.
In addition, the expansion area contains the same telephone number
prefixes and post office zip codes as the existing viticultural area.
Further, the expansion area utilizes the same government services (i.e.
schools, fire departments, etc.) as the existing viticultural area.
Geographical Evidence
The petitioner provided geographical evidence derived from the
``Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, California'' --Paso Robles
Area. This survey was a cooperative effort of the Soil Conservation
Service and the University of California Agriculture Experiment
Station. Petitioner's data also reflects information collected from
airports, forestry stations, city and county historical records and
individual agriculturalists.
The expansion area is characterized by rolling hills, 750 feet to
1800 feet, similar to the current Paso Robles appellation and unlike
the more mountainous area of York Mountain. Soils generally consist of
Nacimiento Ayar, Nacimento Los Osos Balcom Series and Linne-Calodo
Series, three of the four soil types found in the current appellation.
Temperatures in the expansion area are the same as the current
appellation, ranging between 20-110 degrees Fahrenheit. Rainfall in the
current appellation is between 10 and 25 inches per year. The expansion
area averages 25 inches per year maintaining a similarity with the
current appellation and less than the 45 inches per year within the
York Mountain Viticultural Area. Degree days of 2500--3500 are also the
same for both the current appellation and the expansion area.
Boundaries
The boundaries for the extension of the Paso Robles viticultural
area use range and township lines, the county line and other points of
reference. These same features are used as boundaries for the existing
Paso Robles viticultural area.
The points of reference for the boundaries of the current
viticultural area and the expansion area are found on United States
Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) map entitled ``San Luis Obispo,'' scale
1:250,000 (1956, revised 1969).
Paperwork Reduction Act
The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-
511, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part
1320, do not apply to this final rule because no requirement to collect
information is imposed.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
It is hereby certified that this regulation will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name is the
result of the proprietor's own efforts and consumer acceptance of wines
from that region. No new recordkeeping or reporting requirements are
imposed. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this regulation is not a significant
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a
regulatory assessment is not required.
Drafting Information
The principal author of this document is Mary Lou Blake, Wine,
Beer, and Spirits Regulations Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms.
List of Subject in 27 CFR Part 9
Administrative practices and procedures, Consumer protection,
Viticultural areas, and Wine.
Authority and Issuance
Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 9, American
Viticultural Areas, is amended as follows:
PART 9--AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for Part 9 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Par. 2. Subpart C is amended by revising section 9.84(c) to read as
follows:
Subpart C--Approved American Viticultural Areas
* * * * *
Sec. 9.84 Paso Robles.
* * * * *
(c) Boundaries. The Paso Robles viticultural area is located within
San Luis Obispo County, California. From the point of beginning where
the county
[[Page 29954]]
lines of San Luis Obispo, Kings and Kern Counties converge, the county
line also being the township line between T.24S. and T.25S., in R.16E.:
(1) Then in a westerly direction along this county line for 42
miles to the range line between R.9E. and R.10E.;
(2) Then in a southerly direction for 12 miles along the range line
to the southwest of corner of T.26S. and R.10E.;
(3) Then in a southeasterly direction, approximately 5.5 miles to a
point of intersection of the Dover Canyon Jeep Trail and Dover Canyon
Road;
(4) Then in an easterly direction along Dover Canyon Road,
approximately 1.5 miles, to the western border line of Rancho Paso de
Robles;
(5) Then, following the border of the Paso Robles land grant,
beginning in an easterly direction, to a point where it intersects the
range line between R.11E. and R.12E.;
(6) Then southeasterly for approximately 16.5 miles to the point of
intersection of the township line between T.29S. and T.30S. and the
range line between R.12E. and R.13E.;
(7) Then in an easterly direction for approximately 6 miles to the
range line between R.13E. and R.14E.;
(8) Then in a northerly direction for approximately 6 miles to the
township line between T.28S. and T.29S.;
(9) Then in an easterly direction for approximately 18 miles to the
range line between R.16E. and R.17E.;
(10) Then in a northerly direction for approximately 24 miles to
the point of beginning.
Signed: May 17, 1996.
Bradley A. Buckles,
Acting Director.
Approved: May 24, 1996.
John P. Simpson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Regulatory, Tariff and Trade Enforcement).
[FR Doc. 96-14854 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14825 Passports
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14825]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau of Consular Affairs
22 CFR Part 51
[Public Notice Number 2401]
Passports
AGENCY: Bureau of Consular Affairs, State.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule amends the regulations at 22 CFR Part 51, Subpart B
to eliminate obsolete language regarding release of passport
information.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 13, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Willaim B. Wharton, Director, Office of Passport Policy and Advisory
Services, telephone (202) 955-0231.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Present regulations provide for the release
of passport information in accordance with the provisions of the
Privacy Act, the Freedom of Information Act and applicable provisions
of 22 CFR Part 171 and Part 172. This rule is not expected to have
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In addition, this rule does
not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. This rule has been reviewed as
required by E.O. 12778 and certified to be in compliance therewith.
This rule is exempt from review under E.O. 12866, but has been reviewed
internally by the Department to ensure consistency with the objectives
thereof. In addition, as this amendment involves ``a matter relating to
agency management,'' it is exempt from the requirement of notice and
comment pursuant to section 553(a)(2) of the Administrative Procedures
Act; and, accordingly, it may be promulgated as a final rule.
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 51
Passports and visas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 22 CFR Part 51 is
amended as follows:
PART 51--PASSPORTS
Subpart B--Application
1. The authority citation for section 51.33 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2658 and 3926; 5 U.S.C. 552, 552a.
2. Section 51.33 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 51.33 Release of passport information.
Information in passport files is subject to the provisions of the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act. Release of this
information may be requested in accordance with the implementing
regulations set forth in Subchapter R, Part 171 or Part 172 of this
title.
Dated: May 20, 1996.
Mary A. Ryan,
Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-14825 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14822 Shipping and Seamen
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29940-29941]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14822]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
22 CFR Parts 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, and 88
[Public Notice 2406]
Shipping and Seamen
AGENCY: Bureau of Consular Affairs, State.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As part of the President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative,
the Bureau of Consular Affairs is repealing all of its regulations on
Shipping and Seamen, which are found at 22 CFR Parts 81 through 88.
Several of the current regulations are obsolete and some of the
regulations are merely word-for-word repetitions of existing statutes.
At the same time, most of the procedural aspects of consular work
relating to shipping and seamen are covered in the Foreign Affairs
Manual, which provides guidance and instructions to consuls performing
these responsibilities worldwide, and do not need to be covered in
regulations. The Bureau is currently considering whether to propose a
replacement section, to be designated as 22 CFR Part 80. If the Bureau
decides that such regulations are necessary, it will propose new
regulations that will be up to date and more appropriate in scope and
content.
In the interim, the Department will rely directly on its statutory
authorities in this area and the procedures in the Foreign Affairs
Manual to perform shipping and seamen functions.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 13, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carmen A. DiPlacido, or Michael
Meszaros, Overseas Citizens Services, Department of State, 202-647-3666
or 202-647-4994.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule eliminates Parts 81 through 88 of
the Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations. These rules relate to
consular services provided to seamen and in connection with U.S.
registered vessels. In recent years, the number of U.S. citizens
serving as merchant seamen has declined. Also, the number of merchant
vessels registered in the United States has declined. Proportionately,
the quantity of consular services provided to U.S. seamen has also
declined. Currently, very few foreign service posts are called upon to
[[Page 29941]]
provide services related to shipping and seamen. Those they do perform
are very routine functions. While historically important, protection of
seamen is not any longer a significant function performed by consular
officers.
In addition, there have been major legislative changes since
Chapters 81-88 were promulgated. Many of the current regulations have
been unchanged since 1957, and a good portion have become obsolete. For
example, 22 CFR section 87.1 authorizes consular officers to issue a
certificate of American Ownership or a Provisional Certificate of
Registry. In fact, Provisional Certificates of Registry have not been
issued since 1981. Another example is 22 CFR section 84.8(b), which
refers to ``shipping commissioners.'' There are no longer any shipping
commissioners. In addition, some of the statutes on which the
regulations are based have been repealed (e.g., 46 U.S.C. 593, and 46
U.S.C. 621 to 628) and replaced by new and different legislation.
In repealing the regulations on Shipping and Seamen, the Bureau of
Consular Affairs has consulted with the Coast Guard and the United
Seamen's Service. It was determined that many of the current
regulations merely restate statutory or common law, or deal with the
internal policy of the Department of State. As such, they are
unnecessary and can be removed.
If new regulations are proposed, they will be much simpler and
consistent with the current State Department dealings with shipping and
seamen. The core functions (responsibilities to vessels, relief and
repatriation of individual seamen) will be spelled out as necessary.
It is hereby certified that the repeal of these regulations will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), because the issues addressed are not of an economic nature and
a very small number of U.S. vessels will be affected. In addition, the
repeal of these regulations will not impose information collection
requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. Nor do these rules have federalism
implications warranting the preparation of a Federalism Assessment in
accordance with E.O. 12612.
Review under E.O. 12988 is not required, because no new regulations
are being proposed at this time. This regulatory action is exempt from
review under E.O. 12866, but has been undertaken consistent with the
policies and principles thereof. This action is being taken as a final
rule, pursuant to the ``good cause'' provision of 5 U.S.C. section 553
(b); notice and comment are not necessary in light of the fact that
Department is merely repealing regulations that are obsolete or
repetitive of other statutory or procedural guidance. Moreover, the
Department will continue to have authority to act with respect to
shipping and seamen by relying directly upon existing statutory
authority.
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Parts 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, and 88
Foreign Service, Seamen, Vessels.
Pursuant to the above authorities, Title 22 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as set forth below:
PARTS 81 THROUGH 88--[REMOVED]
1. Parts 81 through 88 are removed.
Dated: May 31, 1996.
Mary A. Ryan,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-14822 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14821 Foreign Prohibitions on Longshore Work by U.S. Nationals
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29941-29949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14821]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs
[Public Notice 2396]
22 CFR Part 89
Foreign Prohibitions on Longshore Work by U.S. Nationals
AGENCY: Bureau of Economics and Business Affairs, State.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act of
1952, as amended, the Department of State is issuing a rule updating
the list, of longshore work by particular activity, of countries where
performance of such a particular activity by crewmembers aboard United
States vessels is prohibited by law, regulation or in practice in the
country.
effective DATE: June 13, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Office of Maritime and Land Transport (EB/TRA/MA), Room
5828, Department of State, Washington, D.C. 20520-5816.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard T. Miller, Office of Maritime
and Land Transport, Department of State, (202) 647-6961.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 258 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. 1288, determines that alien crewmen
may not perform longshore work in the United States. Longshore work is
defined broadly to include ``any activity relating to the loading or
unloading of cargo, the operation of cargo-related equipment (whether
or not integral to the vessel), and the handling of mooring lines on
the dock when the vessel is made fast or let go, in the United States
or the coastal waters thereof.'' The Act goes on, however, to define a
number of exceptions to the general prohibition on such work.
Section 258(b)(2), in what is known as the ``Exception for Safety
and Environmental Protection,'' excludes from the definition of
longshore work under this statute ``the loading or unloading of any
cargo for which the Secretary of Transportation has, under the
authority contained in chapter 37 of title 46, United States Code
(relating to Carriage of Liquid Bulk Dangerous Cargoes), section 311 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321), section 4106
of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or section 105 or 106 of the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. App. 1804, 1805)
prescribed regulations which govern--(A) the handling or stowage of
such cargo, (B) the manning of vessels and the duties, qualifications,
and training of the officers and crew of vessels carrying such cargo,
and (C) the reduction or elimination of discharge during ballasting,
tank cleaning, handling of such cargo.''
Section 258(c), in what is known as the ``Prevailing Practice
Exception,'' exempts particular activities of longshore work in and
about a local port if there is a collective bargaining agreement
covering at least 30 percent of the longshore workers in the area that
permits the activities or if there is no such collective bargaining
agreement and the employer of the alien crew files an appropriate
attestation, in a timely fashion, that the performance of the activity
by alien crewmen is permitted under the prevailing practice of the
particular port. The attestation is not required for activities
consisting of the use of an automated self-unloading conveyor belt or
vacuum-actuated system on a vessel unless the Secretary of Labor finds,
based on a preponderance of evidence which may be submitted by any
interested party, that the performance of such particular activity is
not the prevailing practice in the area or that certain labor actions
are underway.
Section 258(d), the ``State of Alaska Exception,'' provides
detailed conditions under which alien crewmembers may be allowed to
perform longshore activities in Alaska, including the filing of an
attestation
[[Page 29942]]
with the Secretary of Labor at least 30 days before the performance of
the work setting forth facts and evidence to show that the employer
will make a bona fide request for U.S. longshore workers who are
qualified and available, will employ all such workers made available
who are needed, and has informed appropriate labor unions, stevedores,
and dock operators of the attestation, and that the attestation is not
intended to influence an election of bargaining representatives.
Finally, Section 258(e), in what is known as the ``Reciprocity
Exception,'' allows the performance of activities constituting
longshore work by alien crew aboard vessels flagged and owned in
countries where such activities are permitted by crews aboard U.S.
ships. The Secretary of State is directed to compile and annually
maintain a list, of longshore work by particular activity, of countries
where performance of such a particular activity by crewmembers aboard
United States vessels is prohibited by law, regulation, or in practice
in the country. The Department of State (hereinafter the Department)
published such a list as a final rule on December 27, 1991 (56 FR
66970), corrected on January 14, 1992 (57 FR 13804). An updated list
was last published on December 13, 1993 (58 FR 65118).
At the request of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives, the Government Accounting Office (hereinafter the GAO)
reviewed the Department's criteria and methodology for compiling the
list of countries in the past. The GAO concluded that ``with relatively
small changes in how it obtains information and determines which
countries to place on the list, State can significantly improve its
data collection and decision-making procedures.'' With respect to the
statute's use of the phrase ``in practice'', the GAO concluded that
differing interpretations were legally supportable and observed that
the interpretation being followed tended to maximize the number of
countries granted a reciprocity exception.
After giving notice on March 24, 1994 (59 FR 13904) that it was
updating the list, the Department issued a proposed rule on November
24, 1995 (60 FR 58026) with a revised list. The proposed rule reflected
changes in methodology recommended by the Government Accounting Office
and, in an effort to ensure that the list reflects restrictive
practices in foreign countries fully and accurately, standards for
reciprocity taking into account practices, whether or not required or
sanctioned by governments. In response, the Department received 79
written comments and oral demarches from two foreign governments.
Comments and Responses
General
Comment: Four commenters, all from U.S. labor unions, supported the
Department's interpretation of the term ``in practice'' as including
restrictive practices irrespective of government involvement. The
writers said that the rule would protect American longshore workers
from incursions by foreign mariners doing cargo handling as
distinguished from navigational duties. A number of commenters, on the
other hand, took exception to the proposal to consider private
activities when determining eligibility for the reciprocity exemption
and observed that the Government Accounting Office found the
interpretation used in previous rulemakings on this subject legally
supportable. Several of them asserted that the legislative history did
not support the proposed rule. They disputed the Department's
conclusion that the reciprocity provision is a limited exception.
Response: In its report, the GAO concluded that the statutory
phrase ``in practice'' is susceptible to differing interpretations and
noted that the language of the law and its legislative history could
support an interpretation under which privately negotiated collective
bargaining agreements would disqualify a country for a reciprocal
exception. On the basis of its review of the statute, the Department
concurs. The impact on the list of this change is modest, however; only
six countries have been added to the list solely because of private
collective bargaining agreements. The Department's conclusion that the
reciprocity exception is a ``limited exception'' is based on the
statutory scheme embodied in section 258, which prohibits longshore
work by alien seamen in general, and then enumerates specific, limited
circumstances, including on the basis of reciprocity, in which such
work may be performed.
Comment: One commenter said that the proposed rule would violate
U.S. treaty commitments with a number of countries, since many U.S.
treaties of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation accord vessels of the
other party national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment.
Response: While many U.S. treaties of Friendship, Commerce and
Navigation accord vessels of the other party, and nationals of the
other party engaged in commercial activity, national treatment and
most-favored-nation treatment, such treaties typically contain clauses
which subject the entry privileges granted therein to the immigration
laws of each party and deny any right to engage in gainful occupations
in contravention of limitations expressly imposed, according to
internal laws and regulations, as a condition of their admittance.
Comment: One commenter recalled that the definition in Section 258
of the Immigration and Nationality Act of longshore work differs from
the rules, regulations and practice in other countries and asserted
that application of the definition in the U.S. legislation to foreign
ships would hinder the sovereignty a flag state exercises over a ship
in its register. In this connection, several commenters expressed
concerns about U.S. citizens doing certain longshore activities, such
as handling of ships' stores, repairs to ships, midstream loading,
opening and closing of cargo hatches, and fueling, which, they said,
the crew traditionally carries out and can better do.
Response: The definition of longshore work contained in Section 258
is indeed broad, encompassing ``any activity relating to the loading or
unloading of cargo, the operation of cargo-related equipment (whether
or not integral to the vessel), and the handling of mooring lines on
the dock when the vessel is made fast or let go, in the United States
or the coastal waters thereof.'' Under this broad definition, the
Department is directed in the law to maintain the list of countries
``by particular activity.'' Only those particular activities restricted
in a foreign country will be restricted in the United States. Thus, in
no case will the application of the law provide for restrictions
broader than those applied by the foreign country in which the ship in
question is flagged or owned. Similarly, practices traditionally
performed by ships' crews will not be restricted in the U.S. unless the
performance of such practices is restricted in a foreign country.
Comment: Several commenters expressed fear that the proposed rule
would increase the danger of accidents and environmental mishaps. The
writers said that transient port workers could not acquire the level of
experience and training necessary to operate sophisticated cargo
transfer equipment, which often differs from ship to ship. The
commenters expressed concerns that at the high rates of cargo discharge
the equipment makes possible, mishandling might cause serious injury to
personnel and create environmental hazards.
[[Page 29943]]
Response: The law does not give the authority to grant a
reciprocity exemption for safety or environmental concerns, except for
countries that regulate longshore activities in their ports and waters
on this basis. Congress separately addressed environmental and safety
issues regarding the handling of certain types of hazardous cargo in
Section 258(b)(2) discussed earlier.
Comment: Several commenters highlighted the practical difficulties
of applying a rule to longshore activities that take place in private
terminals, many of which are in remote areas where no shoreside labor
is available or where there may be no port facilities at all.
Response: The Department notes that the ``Prevailing Practice
Exception'' described above would appear to cover the circumstances
described by these commentators. In those cases where the Department
obtained particular information about practices in private terminals,
that information has been reflected in the list of countries.
Implementation Procedures
Comment: One commenter said that the survey was too limited because
it did not take general labor laws into account. Another commenter
expressed the fear that the standardized methodology developed by the
Department would generate inaccurate findings and overlook local rules
in foreign countries affecting specialized vessels. The writer noted
that appropriate procedures for specialized ships may not exist in many
smaller countries where such ships rarely call. The commenter doubted
whether the follow-up procedures would be thorough enough to make
accurate or fair determinations. Another commenter recommended a
provision for periodic review to account for changes in longshore work
resulting from technological change. Noting some activities enumerated
in the list, another commenter asked for a procedure to secure official
interpretations of authorized longshore work exemptions for nations
generally listed as ineligible for the reciprocity exception. Several
commenters worried that the proposed rule would overburden U.S.
immigration inspectors by making them responsible for interpreting
differing customs and practice in each port.
Response: The GAO report urged the Department to develop
standardized methodology to ensure consistent treatment of countries.
The Department has made every effort to obtain full and accurate
information about the countries listed, including general labor laws
where they affect the performance of longshore work by U.S. seamen, and
is prepared to investigate information supplied by interested parties
and adjust the list accordingly. The Department is required to update
the list annually. The Department's goal is to maintain the list in a
fashion that reflects laws, regulations and practices in foreign
countries as accurately as possible. Where technological change results
in a change in such laws, regulations or practices, that will be
reflected in the list. The responsibility for interpreting the list and
authorizing or denying the performance of activities by alien members
of foreign ships' crews in specific instances lies with the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS). The Department is prepared to assist
the INS in cases where more detailed information about specific
practices in foreign countries would be useful in their determination.
While the expansion of the list of countries in which restrictions have
been found may change the determination by the INS in specific cases,
it is not anticipated that the workload of the INS would expand
significantly as a result.
Comment: One commenter noted that the Department has not placed
countries about which it has no information on the list. The writer
said that any country should be on the list unless the country can
conclusively demonstrate its eligibility for a reciprocity exemption.
Response: The law directs the Department to maintain a list of
countries where restrictions exist. The Department is not in a position
to assume such restrictions absent specific information.
Comment: One commenter said that countries whose ships are
currently prohibited from calling on U.S. ports should be put on the
list in case the prohibition ends during the life of the Department's
rule.
Response: The Department is prepared to consider the situation with
respect to such countries at the time their ships become eligible to
enter U.S. waters, and revise the list if necessary.
Comment: One commenter questioned the Department's decision not to
survey laws, regulations and practices in countries, dependencies and
other geographic entities with a population of less than 5,000 people.
The writer noted that there is nothing in the statute or the
legislative history to support this.
Response: The Department does not believe that it has omitted areas
whose ships are likely to call in the United States. Interested parties
are encouraged to provide the Department with information concerning
longshore rules, regulations or practices in areas not on the list.
Economic Impact
Comment: Several comments questioned the rationale and methodology
leading to the Department's conclusion that the benefits of the
proposed rule for U.S. longshore workers and seamen outweigh the
benefits to U.S. businesses under the previous interpretation. The
writers generally agreed that the law is intended to protect the jobs
of U.S. longshore workers but contended that the proposed rule would
require longshore workers in many situations where they are not needed.
Many commenters feared that the proposed rule would have a negative
impact on business, in particular for shippers of bulk commodities and
exporters of timber products. Other comments suggested that the
proposed rule would have an impact on the budgets of state and local
governments in the snow belt by raising the transport costs of road
salt, a heavy bulk commodity whose transport costs can exceed the
initial acquisition costs. Some comments also expressed concern that
the rule would discourage technological innovation. One suggested that
the proposed rule would give foreign competitors an advantage in the
world market by diverting modern, more efficient vessels to other
countries.
Response: In the Department's view, the economic rationale for
Section 258 rests on the fact that all of the longshore workers or
seamen to whom benefits may accrue are U.S. citizens, while the
businesses that may pay higher costs, and their consumers, are often
foreign. In those cases where the effect of the law is, ceteris
paribus, to shift work from foreign crews to U.S. longshore workers,
there will be an obvious gain for the U.S. economy. In those cases
where the shift to U.S. longshore workers results in higher loading or
unloading costs, but the activity continues at the same levels, for
example in the case of the import of road salt, there may still be an
overall net gain for the U.S. economy as a whole. From a macroeconomic
point of view, increased costs to American businesses, municipalities,
or consumers would be offset by the increased income and spending of
U.S. longshore workers or seamen; in those cases where at least part of
the increased cost was borne by foreign entities, there would be a net
gain for the U.S. economy as a whole. A number of companies have raised
the possibility of job losses or other external negative effects in the
United States. While it is certainly possible that application of the
law could result in higher shipping
[[Page 29944]]
costs in certain trades, and that such higher costs could affect the
level of those trades, in general the Department found such concerns to
be based on worst case scenarios focusing solely on the reciprocity
exception while disregarding other measures that might be taken to
reduce costs. For example, in a number of cases, concerns were
expressed about the loss of a reciprocity exception in industries and
situations where, in the Department's view, a ``Prevailing Practice
Exception'' would almost certainly apply. This is particularly likely
in the case of bulk shippers operating in private ports or terminals.
In other cases, one or another of the other exceptions in section 258
may apply.
In cases where no exception applies, other measures that may be
available to businesses to mitigate any negative effects from this
ruling include the employment of U.S. citizens aboard foreign-owned or
flagged vessels to perform the work in question, the use of U.S. flag
ships, and the reflagging of vessels in countries eligible for the
reciprocity exception. In all cases, companies will be able, at a
minimum, to utilize the collective bargaining process to seek cost
structures that maximize the collective economic benefit for all
concerned.
With respect to fears that companies might have to employ
unnecessary labor, the Department notes that Section 258 is quite
explicit in prohibiting the performance of work by alien seamen. The
intent is to substitute U.S. labor for foreign labor, not to add
unnecessary labor, although this would be allowed on a reciprocity
basis if it were an accepted practice in the foreign country in
question.
As to the possible diversion of modern more-efficient vessels to
other countries, companies may wish to explore provisions in the
Immigration and Naturalization Act which allow foreign workers with
specialized skills to work in the United States. The Department notes,
for example, that operators of specialized equipment connected with the
log trade have entered the United States, after appropriate
determinations, with specialized visas other than those issued to crew
members. The Department is of the view that such workers do not fall
within the scope of Section 258, which relates specifically to persons
eligible to enter the United States under section 101(a)(15)(D)(i).
With respect to the specific industries about which questions were
raised, the Department notes that in some cases it was possible to
confirm information supplied about alleged restricted or unrestricted
practices in foreign countries. Where necessary in these cases, the
list of countries has been adjusted.
Specialized Vessels
Comment: Many comments highlighted the effect of the proposed rule
on specialized vessels. Noting the special training required for the
safe and efficient operation of equipment aboard these ships, several
commenters requested a blanket exemption for self-unloading bulk
vessels and log carriers.
Response: The Department does not have the authority to grant a
blanket exception for self-loading/unloading bulk vessels or log
carriers, or, indeed, any specific class of ships. Country-specific
reciprocity exceptions of this type were sometimes possible, however.
The Department notes that the law refers specifically to vessels with
self-unloading conveyor belts and vacuum-actuated systems in discussing
the ``Prevailing Practice Exception.''
Comment: One commenter contended that the law was not intended to
apply to passenger vessels.
Response: The Department agrees, based on language in the
Conference Report, that the law was not intended to apply to passenger
vessels.
Status of Individual Countries
Canada: A large number of comments discussed Canada's eligibility
for a reciprocity exception. Referring to the historically close links
and free trade commitments between Canada and the U.S., several
comments called for a blanket exemption for the entire country. One
commenter contended that Canada has a general regulation that the
Canadian Government might not be enforcing which requires an employment
validation for foreign crew members. The writer called for placing
Canada on the list because of this legal requirement. Many comments
went into great detail about practices in different parts of Canada.
Twenty-six commenters stressed the importance of maintaining an
exception for Canadian bulk vessels in the Great Lakes. They warned
that elimination of the exception would hurt the special trade
relationship between the United States and Canada by raising transport
costs for a variety of bulk commodities. A number of them noted that
the crews of U.S. bulk ships in Canadian Great Lakes ports are free to
carry out longshore work. The writers offered technical suggestions
about the exception in the listing for that region. Another commenter
reported that a collective bargaining agreement in Vancouver, British
Colombia prevents the use of belt self-unloading vessels.
In response, the Department has consulted extensively with U.S.
diplomatic posts in Canada, U.S. carriers operating into Canada, union
and industry officials, and the Canadian government. The widespread
existence of restrictive collective bargaining agreements at liner
terminals and public ports was confirmed, requiring the inclusion of
Canada on the list of countries with restrictive practices. However,
the technical corrections to the exceptions for bulk cargo at Great
Lakes ports were found to reflect actual practice and have been
incorporated in the list. Two U.S. operators of specialized self-
loading/unloading log carriers confirmed that they have been able to
operate in Canadian Pacific ports and waters without restrictions on
their U.S. crews, and an exception has therefore been added in this
regard. Exceptions were also added for a number of shipboard activities
found to be generally excepted in Canadian collective bargaining
agreements. Finally, U.S. carriers, Canadian government and industry
officials, and labor union officials advised the U.S. Consulates in
Montreal, Halifax and Vancouver that restrictions in collective
bargaining agreements do not apply to U.S. self-loading/unloading bulk
vessels calling on private terminals, so an exception was added for
these vessels at private terminals.
Chile: After reviewing the report from the U.S. Embassy in
Santiago, a commenter questioned the decision not to place Chile on the
list because of a provision in Chilean law allowing authorities to
restrict access to port areas by any person.
The Department acknowledges the existence of the law, but notes
that it does not require access to be restricted. According to
information provided by the U.S. Embassy in Santiago, access by U.S.
mariners is not restricted. Therefore, Chile has not been added to the
list.
Congo: A commenter notes that the U.S. Embassy in Brazzaville did
not find any restrictions on longshore work, but had reported in
response to inquiries to compile earlier lists that the Congo did
prohibit foreign mariners from carrying out longshore work.
The Department has asked the U.S. Embassy in Libreville Congo to
investigate further. Based on the most current information, Congo will
not be added to the list at this time.
France: One commenter noted that the U.S. Embassy in Paris did not
find any restrictions on longshore work, but had reported in response
to inquiries to
[[Page 29945]]
compile earlier lists that France had laws setting aside longshore
activities for local port workers.
At the Department's request, the U.S. diplomatic posts in France
investigated further and determined that French law does in fact
restrict longshore activities, with certain exceptions, to registered
workers employed by a stevedore company at a French port. France
therefore has been placed on the list.
Greece: The U.S. Embassy in Athens had reported that there were not
any restrictions on longshore work, but the Department received other
reports that local dockworkers have the exclusive right to do longshore
work.
The Department asked the U.S. Embassy in Athens to investigate
further. The Embassy has confirmed that foreign crew may not operate
shore-based equipment to load/unload a vessel, as a license is required
to operate such equipment. Greece is therefore being added to the list
of countries.
Greenland: The Government of Denmark reported that Greenland does
not possess a separate ship registry and asked that Greenland be
treated the same as Denmark for purposes of possible inclusion in the
list of countries.
The U.S. Embassy in Denmark confirmed the Danish Government's
report and provided information indicating that U.S. mariners were not
restricted in activities defined as longshore work in the statute.
Greenland has therefore been dropped from the list.
Italy: After reviewing reports from the U.S. Embassy in Rome, a
commenter questioned whether Italy should be placed on the list for
line handling. The commenter noted that Italian law does not consider
line handling as longshore activity and requires authorization by
government authorities. The commenter also questioned whether Italian
law only allows mariners from EU member countries to perform longshore
work.
At the request of the Department, the U.S. Embassy in Rome
investigated further and determined that certain longshore activities,
including cargo loading, discharge and transfer, may be performed by EU
and non-EU mariners with authorization from the national maritime
authority or port authority where a maritime office is not present.
Italian law, on the other hand, does not allow foreign mariners to
handle mooring lines on the dock or do other activities not immediately
related to cargo handling. Italy is therefore being added to the list.
Norway: A commenter noted that the U.S. Embassy in Oslo did not
find any restrictions on longshore work, but had reported in response
to inquiries to compile earlier lists that Norwegian laws not in force
restrict most longshore work to local port workers.
The Department has asked the U.S. Embassy in Oslo to investigate
further. Pending further information, Norway is not being added to the
list.
Oman: One commenter pointed out that information received in
response to the Department's questionnaire differed from that reported
in the past.
The Department has asked the U.S. Embassy in Muscat, Oman to
investigate further. Pending confirmation of its initial report, the
Department is not adding Oman to the list.
Sierra Leone: One commenter pointed out that information received
in response to the Department's questionnaire differed from that
reported in the past.
In response, the Department reviewed conditions in Sierra Leone and
determined that the Sierra Leone Ports Authority is the only agency
designated by the government to engage in stevedoring services. Sierra
Leone has therefore been added to the list of countries in which there
are restrictions.
Vanuatu: Two commenters asserted that there are no government
rules, regulations or collective bargaining agreements restricting
longshore work by U.S. mariners in Vanuatu.
In response, the Department reconfirmed with the U.S. Embassy in
Port Moresby that actual practice in Vanuatu was restrictive in some
respects. Vanuatu has therefore been retained on the list, in slightly
modified form.
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 89
Aliens, Crewmembers, Immigration, Labor, Longshore and harbor
workers, Seamen.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 22 CFR Chapter I is
amended as follows:
PART 89--PROHIBITIONS ON LONGSHORE WORK BY U.S. NATIONALS
1. The authority citation for part 89 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1288, Public Law 101-649 Stat. 4878
2. Part 89 is amended by revising Sec. 89.1 to read as follows:
Sec. 89.1 Prohibitions on Longshore work by U.S. nationals; listing by
country.
The Secretary of State has determined that, in the following
countries, longshore work by crewmembers aboard United States vessels
is prohibited by law, regulation, or in practice, with respect to the
particular activities noted:
Algeria
(a) All longshore activities.
Angola
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches
(2) Rigging of ship's gear, and
(3) Loading and discharge of cargo on board the ship if local labor
is paid as if they had done the work.
Argentina
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Cargo tiedown and untying,
(2) When a disaster occurs,
(3) Provision of vessel supplies, and
(4) Opening and closing of hatches.
Australia
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) When shore labor cannot be obtained at rates prescribed by
collective bargaining agreements,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(3) Rigging of ship's gear.
Bahamas
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo related equipment on board the ship,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches,
(3) Rigging of ship's gear, and
(4) Use of specialized equipment which port workers cannot handle
alone, with the concurrence of the local longshore union.
Bangladesh
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo-related equipment integral to the vessel
when there is a shortage of port workers able to operate the equipment
and with the permission of the port authority, and
(2) Opening and closing of hatches.
Belgium
(a) All longshore activities.
Belize
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo related equipment,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(3) Rigging of ship's gear.
Benin
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
[[Page 29946]]
(1) Operation of cargo related equipment,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(3) Rigging of ship's gear.
Bermuda
(a) Loading and discharge of cargo using cranes and loading
equipment situated on the docks or wharves.
(b) Line handling on the docks.
Brazil
(a) All longshore activities at public terminals.
Bulgaria
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo related equipment,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches,
(3) Rigging of ship's gear,
(4) Mooring and line handling, and
(5) Operation of special equipment and discharge of dangerous
cargo, with the preliminary authorization of the Port Administration
and Harbor Master.
Burma
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Cameroon
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Canada
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches,
(2) Cleaning of holds and tanks,
(3) Loading of ship's stores,
(4) Operation of onboard rented equipment,
(5) Ballasting and deballasting,
(6) Rigging of ship's gear,
(7) Exceptions in connection with bulk cargo at Great Lakes ports
only:
(i) Handling of mooring lines on the dock when the vessel is made
fast, shifted or let go,
(ii) Moving the vessel to place it under shoreside loading and
unloading equipment,
(iii) Moving the vessel in position to unload the vessel onto
specific cargo piles, hoppers or conveyor belt systems, and
(iv) Operation of cargo related equipment integral to the vessel.
(8) Operation of self-loading/unloading equipment and line handling
by the crews of bulk vessels calling at private terminals, and
(9) Operation of specialized self-loading/unloading log carriers on
the Pacific Coast.
Cape Verde
(a) All longshore activities.
China
(a) Handling of mooring lines.
Colombia
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exception: When local workers are unable or unavailable to
provide longshore services.
Comoros
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo related equipment,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches,
(3) Rigging of ship's gear, and
(4) Other activities with government authorization.
Costa Rica
(a) Operation of equipment fixed to the ground.
Cote d'Ivoire
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(2) Rigging of automated ship's gear.
Croatia
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo-related equipment on board the ship when
outside of port, and
(2) Operation of specialized unloading equipment.
Cyprus
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Djibouti
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exception: Operation of cranes aboard ship.
Dominica
(a) All longshore activities.
Dominican Republic
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exception: Operation of equipment with which local port workers
are not familiar.
Ecuador
(a) All longshore activities.
Egypt
(a) Cargo loading and unloading activities not on board the ship.
El Salvador
(a) All longshore activities.
Eritrea
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exception: Opening and closing of hatches and rigging of ship's
gear if port labor is paid as if it had done the work.
Estonia
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) On-board mooring activities,
(2) Replacement of lines,
(3) Lifting and movement of ladders,
(4) Movement of vessel's equipment,
(5) Loading of food and vessel's equipment by cargo-related
equipment of the vessel, and
(6) Securing of general cargo, vehicles and containers to the
vessel.
Fiji
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo related equipment, except for discharging
cargo,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(3) Rigging of ship's gear.
Finland
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions, when not related to cargo loading and discharge:
(1) Operation of cargo-related equipment,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(3) Rigging of ship's gear.
France
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Loading and discharge of the ship's own material and provisions
if done by the ship's own equipment or by the owner of the merchandise
using his own personnel,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches,
(3) Rigging of ship's gear,
(4) Operation of cargo-related equipment to shift cargo internally,
(5) Handling operations connected with shipbuilding and refitting,
and
(6) Offloading fish by the crew or personnel working for the ship
owner.
Gabon
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exception: All longshore activities if local workers are paid
as if they had done the work.
Georgia
(a) All longshore activities.
[[Page 29947]]
(b) Exception: All longshore activities if local workers are paid
as if they had done the work.
Germany
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Ghana
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo-related equipment,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(3) Rigging of ship's gear.
Greece
(a) Operation of shore-based equipment to load/unload a vessel.
Guatemala
(a) All longshore activities.
Guinea
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Guyana
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo-related equipment aboard ship,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(3) Rigging of ship's gear.
Haiti
(a) All longshore activities.
Honduras
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo-related equipment,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(3) Rigging of ship's gear.
Hong Kong
(a) Operation of equipment on the pier.
Iceland
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exception: Operation of shipboard equipment and cranes.
India
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exception: Operation of shipboard equipment that local port
workers cannot operate.
Indonesia
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) With the permission of the port administrator, when no local
port workers with requisite skills are available, and
(2) In the event of an emergency.
Ireland
(a) All longshore activities.
Israel
(a) All longshore activities.
Italy
(a) Cargo loading, discharge and transfer without the permission of
the Maritime Administration or the local port authority, if no office
of the Maritime Administration is present, and a deposit for possible
use of port stevedoring services.
(b) Handling of lines on the dock and other longshore activities
not immediate related to cargo handling.
Jamaica
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of equipment integral to the vessel,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches, jointly with local port
workers, and
(3) Rigging of ship's gear jointly with local port workers.
Japan
(a) All longshore activities.
Jordan
(a) All longshore activities.
Kenya
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches,
(2) Rigging of ship's gear,
(3) In an emergency declared by the port authority, and
(4) Direct transfer of cargo from one ship to another.
Korea
(a) All longshore activities.
Kuwait
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions, when activities are declined by port workers:
(1) Operation of cargo-related equipment,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(3) Rigging of ship's gear.
Liberia
(a) Longshore activities on shore.
Lithuania
(a) The following activities in harbor:
(1) Loading and discharge of cargo,
(2) Maintenance of port equipment,
(3) Receiving and fixing of dock ropes to harbor equipment,
(4) Transportation of cargo within the port, and
(5) Warehousing and security.
(b) Exception: Opening and closing of hatches.
Madagascar
(a) All longshore activities.
Malaysia
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exception: Loading and discharge of hazardous materials.
Maldive Islands
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo-related equipment aboard ship,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches,
(3) Rigging of ship's gear, and
(4) Other longshore activities within port limits, when authorized
by the port authority in cases when the port authority is unable to
provide longshore workers.
Malta
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Mauritania
(a) All longshore activities on shore.
Mauritius
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Mexico
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exception: Onboard activities if local workers are paid as if
they had done the work.
Micronesia
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation and rigging of gear which local port workers cannot
do, and
(2) When no qualified citizens are available.
Morocco
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of ship's gear which port workers cannot operate,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches,
(3) Rigging of ship's gear aboard ship, and
(4) Fastening and unfastening containers.
[[Page 29948]]
Mozambique
(a) All longshore activities on shore.
Namibia
(a) Longshore activities on shore.
Nauru
(a) All longshore activities.
Netherlands
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exception: Regular crew activities on board ship, including
operation of cargo-related equipment, opening and closing of hatches,
and rigging of ship's gear.
Netherlands Antilles
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of ship's gear,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(3) Rigging of ship's gear.
New Zealand
(a) All longshore activities.
Nicaragua
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exception: Shipboard activities if local workers are paid as if
they had done the work.
Pakistan
(a) Longshore activities on shore.
(b) Handling of mooring lines.
(c) Exception: Operation of equipment which dock workers are not
capable of operating.
Panama
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Rigging of ship's gear,
(2) Cargo handling operations with ship's gear, when port authority
equipment is not available to load or unload a vessel.
Papua New Guinea
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Peru
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Handling of certain types of hazardous cargo, and
(2) Operation of shipboard equipment requiring special training.
Philippines
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Activities on board ship, except for loading and discharge of
cargo,
(2) Longshore activities for hazardous or polluting cargoes, and
(3) Longshore activities on government vessels.
Poland
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo-related equipment,
(2) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(3) Rigging of ship's gear.
Portugal (including Azores)
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Military operations,
(2) Operations in an emergency, when under the supervision of the
maritime authorities,
(3) Security or inspection operations,
(4) Loading and discharge of supplies for the vessel and its crew,
(5) Loading and discharge of fuel and petroleum products at special
terminals,
(6) Loading and discharge of chemical products if required for
safety reasons,
(7) Placing of trailers and similar material in parking areas when
done before loading or after discharge,
(8) Cleaning of the vessel, and
(9) Loading, discharge and disposal of merchandise in other boats.
Qatar
(a) All longshore activities.
Romania
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of specialized shipboard equipment, and
(2) Loading and discharge of cargo requiring special operations.
St. Lucia
(a) All longshore activities.
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
(a) All longshore activities.
Saudi Arabia
(a) All longshore activities.
Senegal
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches,
(2) Rigging of ship's gear, and
(3) Cargo handling when necessary to ensure the safety or stability
of the vessel.
Seychelles
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Sierra Leone
(a) All longshore activities.
Slovenia
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Solomon Islands
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
South Africa
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Spain
(a) All longshore activities.
Sri Lanka
(a) Longshore activities on shore.
Sweden
(a) Loading and discharge of cargo.
(b) Rigging of cargo nets, straps and wires to make ready for
loading by the crane.
(c) Cargo handling.
(d) Line handling on the dock.
Taiwan
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo-related equipment which local longshoremen
cannot operate, and
(2) Opening and closing of hatches operated automatically.
Tanzania
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exception: All longshore activities if local workers are paid
as if they had done the work.
Thailand
(a) Longshore activities on shore.
(b) Exception: Longshore activities in private ports.
Togo
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Operation of cargo-related equipment on board the ship, and
(2) Opening and closing of hatches, upon the agreement of the port
officer on duty.
Trinidad and Tobago
(a) All longshore activities.
[[Page 29949]]
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, if done automatically, and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Tunisia
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exception: When the number of local dock workers is
insufficient or when the workers are not qualified to do the work.
Uruguay
(a) Stowing, unstowing, loading and discharge, and related
activities on board ships in commercial ports.
(b) Cargo handling on the docks and piers of commercial ports.
(c) Exception: Activities usually performed by the ship's crew,
including operation of cargo-related equipment, opening and closing of
hatches and rigging of ship's gear.
Vanuatu
(a) All longshore activities on shore.
Venezuela
(a) Longshore activities in private ports and terminals.
Western Samoa
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exceptions:
(1) Opening and closing of hatches, and
(2) Rigging of ship's gear.
Yemen
(a) All longshore activities.
Zaire
(a) All longshore activities.
(b) Exception: Operation of cargo-related equipment, when
authorized by the Port Authority.
Dated: May 16, 1996.
Alan P. Larson,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Economic and Business Affairs, Department
of State.
[FR Doc. 96-14821 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14819 Student Assistance General Provisions
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29960-29961]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14819]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 668
RIN: 1840-AC14 and 1840-AB44
Student Assistance General Provisions
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary amends the Student Assistance General Provisions
regulations to add the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control
number to certain sections of the regulations. These sections contain
information collection requirements approved by OMB. The Secretary
takes this action to inform the public that these requirements have
been approved and affected parties must comply with them.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These regulations are effective on July 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Husselmann or David Lorenzo,
U.S. Department of Education, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., (Room
3053, ROB-3) Washington, D.C. 20202. Telephone (202) 708-7888.
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Final regulations for the Student Assistance
General Provisions were published in
[[Page 29961]]
the Federal Register on November 29 and December 1, 1995 (60 FR 61424
[Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act], 61776 [Student Right-to-Know
Act]). Compliance with information collection requirements in certain
sections of these regulations was delayed until those requirements were
approved by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB approved
the information collection requirements in the regulations on March 14,
1996 for the graduation rate portion of the Student Right-to-Know Act
and Campus Security Act, and March 29, 1996 for the Equity in Athletics
Disclosure Act. The information collection requirements in these
regulations will therefore become effective with all of the other
provisions of the regulations on July 1, 1996.
Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking
It is the practice of the Secretary to offer interested parties the
opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, the
publication of OMB control numbers is purely technical and does not
establish substantive policy. Therefore, the Secretary has determined
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), that public comment on the regulations is
unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.
List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 668
Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and universities,
Consumer protection, Education, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Student aid, Vocational education.
Dated: June 6, 1996.
David A. Longanecker,
Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
The Secretary amends Part 668 of Title 34 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 668--STUDENT ASSISTANCE GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 668 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1085, 1088, 1091, 1092, 1094, 1099c, and
1141 unless otherwise noted.
Secs. 668.41, 668.48 [Amended]
2. Sections 668.41 and 668.48 are amended by republishing the OMB
control number following the section to read as follows: ``(Approved by
the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1840-0711)''
Secs. 668.41, 668.46, 668.49 [Amended]
3. Sections 668.41, 668.46, and 668.49 are amended by adding the
OMB control number following each section to read as follows:
``(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number
1840-0719)''
[FR Doc. 96-14819 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14761 Special Condition: Agusta Models A109D and A109E, High Intensity Radiated Fields
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29928-29931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14761]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 27
[Docket No. 96-ASW-1; Special Condition No. 27-ASW-3]
Special Condition: Agusta Models A109D and A109E, High Intensity
Radiated Fields
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final special condition; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This special condition is issued for the Agusta Model A109D
and A109E helicopters. These helicopters will have a novel or unusual
design feature associated with electronic systems that perform critical
functions. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain
adequate or appropriate safety standards for the protection of the
electronic systems that perform critical functions from the effects of
external high intensity radiated fields (HIRF). This special condition
contains the additional safety standards that the Administrator
considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that
established by the applicable airworthiness standards.
DATES: The effective date of this special condition is June 13, 1996.
Comments must be received on or before August 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal may be mailed in duplicate to the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Attn: Rules Docket No. 96-ASW-1, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0007,
or delivered in duplicate to the Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas. Comments must be marked Docket
No. 96-ASW-1. Comments may be inspected in the Rules Docket weekdays,
except Federal holidays, between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Carroll Wright, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations Group,
Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111; telephone (817) 222-5120.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice and
opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because
these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design
approval and thus delay delivery of the affected helicopter. These
notice and comment procedures are also considered unnecessary since the
public has been previously provided with a substantial number of
opportunities to comment on substantially identical special conditions,
and their comments have been fully considered. Therefore, good cause
exists for making this special condition effective upon issuance.
Comments Invited
Although this final special condition was not subject to notice and
opportunity for prior public comment, comments are invited on this
final special condition. Interested persons are invited to comment on
this final special condition by submitting such written data, views, or
arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the
regulatory docket number and be submitted in duplicate to the address
specified under the caption ADDRESSES. All communications received on
or before the closing date for comments will be considered. This
special condition may be changed in light of comments received. All
comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination
by interested persons, both before and after the closing date of
comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this final rule must submit with those
comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following
statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. 96-ASW-3.'' The postcard
will be date and time stamped and returned to the commenter.
Background
Agusta S.p.A., Cascina Costa, Italy, applied for an amendment to
U.S. Type Certificate H7EU through the Registro Aeronautico Italiano
(RAI) September 23, 1992, updated July 26, 1993, to include Model A109D
and A109E helicopters based on previously certified A109C and A109K2
helicopters. The A109D and A109E helicopters differ from the previously
certificated model helicopters because they contain the following:
a. Allison 250-C22(A109D) or Pratt & Whitney PW206C(A109E) FADEC
controlled engines.
b. A main landing gear that is held in position by two crossbeams
that are covered by pods and is retractable into the bottom of the
helicopter.
c. A new main rotor titanium hub, composite tension links,
electomeric bearings, with dampers derived from the Model A129
helicopter.
d. Updated fuselage and fuel systems; and
e. A new cockpit layout with flat panel displays (IDS) for
powerplant data monitoring.
Type Certification Basis
The certification basis established for the Agusta Model A109D and
A109E helicopters includes: 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Sec. 21.29 and 14 CFR part 27 effective February 1, 1965, including
Amendments 27-1 through 27-8, except as more specifically required by
the following paragraph amendment levels:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph Amendment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
27.2......................................................... 28
27.21........................................................ 21
27.45........................................................ 21
27.71........................................................ 21
27.79........................................................ 21
27.141....................................................... 21
27.143....................................................... 21
27.175....................................................... 21
27.177....................................................... 21
27.401....................................................... 27
27.610....................................................... 21
27.901....................................................... 23
27.903....................................................... 23
27.927....................................................... 23
27.954....................................................... 23
27.1091...................................................... 23
27.1093(b)................................................... 23
27.1189...................................................... 23
27.1305...................................................... 23
27.1309...................................................... 21
27.1321...................................................... 13
[[Page 29929]]
27.1322...................................................... 11
27.1323...................................................... 13
27.1325...................................................... 13
27.1401...................................................... 10
27.1505...................................................... 21
27.1519...................................................... 21
27.1521...................................................... 23
27.1527...................................................... 14
27.1529...................................................... 18
27.1549...................................................... 23
27.1555...................................................... 21
27.1557...................................................... 11
27.1581...................................................... 14
27.1583...................................................... 16
27.1585...................................................... 21
27.1587...................................................... 21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 29.903(b), effective February 1, 1965, for category ``A''
engine isolation, elected by the applicant; Special Conditions No. 27-
54-EU-17 for Agusta Model A109 helicopter, issued on June 26, 1973;
equivalent safety in lieu of compliance shown for:
Section 27.1189, regarding shut-off means, and
Section 27.1305(d), regarding the fuel quantity indicator.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
these helicopters because of a novel or unusual design feature, special
conditions are prescribed under the provisions of Sec. 21.16 to
establish a level of safety equivalent to that established in the
regulations.
Special conditions, as appropriate, are issued in accordance with
Sec. 11.49 after public notice, as required by Secs. 11.28 and
11.29(b), and become part of the type certification basis in accordance
with Sec. 21.101(b)(2).
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the
other model under the provisions of Sec. 21.101(a)(1).
Discussion
The Agusta Model A109D and A109E helicopters, at the time of the
application for amendment to U.S. Type Certificate H7EU, were
identified as incorporating one and possibly more electrical,
electronic, or combination of electrical and electronic (electrical/
electronic) systems that will perform functions critical to the
continued safe flight and landing of the helicopters. A FADEC is an
electronic device that performs the critical functions of engine
control. The control of the engines is critical to the continued safe
flight and landing of the helicopter during visual flight rules (VFR)
and instrument flight rules (IFR) operations.
If it is determined that this helicopter currently or at a future
date incorporates other electrical/electronic systems performing
critical functions, those systems also will be required to comply with
the requirements of this special condition.
Recent advances in technology have prompted the design of aircraft
that include advanced electrical and electronic systems that perform
functions required for continued safe flight and landing. However,
these advanced systems respond to the transient effects of induced
electrical current and voltage caused by the HIRF incident on the
external surface of the helicopters. These induced transient currents
and voltages can degrade the performance of the electrical/electronic
systems by damaging the components or by upsetting the systems'
functions.
Furthermore, the electromagnetic environment has undergone a
transformation not envisioned by the current application of
Sec. 29.1309(a). Higher energy levels radiate from operational
transmitters currently used for radar, radio, and television; the
number of transmitters has increased significantly.
Existing aircraft certification requirements are inappropriate in
view of these technological advances. In addition, the FAA has received
reports of some significant safety incidents and accidents involving
military aircraft equipped with advanced electrical/electronic systems
when they were exposed to electromagnetic radiation.
The combined effects of technological advances in helicopter design
and the changing environment have resulted in an increased level of
vulnerability of the electrical and electronic systems required for the
continued safe flight and landing of the helicopters. Effective
measures to protect these helicopters against the adverse effects of
exposure to HIRF will be provided by the design and installation of
these systems. The following primary factors contributed to the current
conditions: (1) increased use of sensitive electronics that perform
critical functions, (2) reduced electromagnetic shielding afforded
helicopter systems by advanced technology airframe materials, (3)
adverse service experience of military aircraft using these
technologies, and (4) an increase in the number and power of radio
frequency emitters and the expected increase in the future.
The FAA recognizes the need for aircraft certification standards to
keep pace with technological developments and a changing environment
and, in 1986, initiated a high priority program to (1) determine and
define electromagnetic energy levels; (2) develop guidance material for
design, test, and analysis; and (3) prescribe and promulgate regulatory
standards. The FAA participated with industry and airworthiness
authorities of other countries to develop internationally recognized
standards for certification.
The FAA and airworthiness authorities of other countries have
identified a level of HIRF environment that a helicopter could be
exposed to during IFR operations. While the HIRF requirements are being
finalized, the FAA is adopting a special condition for the
certification of aircraft that employ electrical/electronic systems
that perform critical functions. The accepted maximum energy levels
that civilian helicopter system installations must withstand for safe
operation are based on surveys and analysis of existing radio frequency
emitters. This special condition will require the helicopters'
electrical/electronic systems and associated wiring be protected from
these energy levels. These external threat levels are believed to
represent the worst-case exposure for a helicopter operating under IFR.
The HIRF environment specified in this special condition is based
on many critical assumptions. With the exception of takeoff and landing
at an airport, one of these assumptions is the aircraft would be not
less than 500 feet above ground level (AGL). Helicopters operating
under visual flight rules (VFR) routinely operate at less than 500 feet
AGL and perform takeoffs and landings at locations other than
controlled airports. Therefore, it would be expected that the HIRF
environment experienced by a helicopter operating VFR may exceed the
defined environment by 100 percent or more.
This special condition will require the systems that perform
critical functions, as installed in the aircraft, to meet certain
standards based on either a defined HIRF environment or a fixed value
using laboratory tests.
The applicant may demonstrate that the operation and operational
capability of the installed electrical/electronic systems that perform
critical functions are not adversely affected when the aircraft is
exposed to the defined HIRF environment. The FAA has determined that
the environment defined in Table 1 is acceptable for critical functions
in
[[Page 29930]]
helicopters operating at or above 500 feet AGL. For critical functions
of helicopters operating at less than 500 feet AGL, additional factors
must be considered.
The applicant may also demonstrate by a laboratory test that the
electrical/electronic systems that perform critical functions can
withstand a peak electromagnetic field strength in a frequency range of
10 KHz to 18 GHz. If a laboratory test is used to show compliance with
the defined HIRF environment, no credit will be given for signal
attenuation due to installation. A level of 100 v/m and other
considerations, such as an alternate technology backup that is immune
to HIRF, are appropriate for critical functions during IFR operations.
A level of 200 v/m and further considerations, such as an alternate
technology backup that is immune to HIRF, are more appropriate for
critical functions during VFR operations.
Applicants must perform a preliminary hazard analysis to identify
electrical/electronic systems that perform critical functions. The term
``critical'' means those functions whose failure would contribute to or
cause a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight
and landing of the helicopters. The systems identified by the hazard
analysis as performing critical functions are required to have HIRF
protection.
A system may perform both critical and noncritical functions.
Primary electronic flight display systems and their associated
components perform critical functions such as attitude, altitude, and
airspeed indications. HIRF requirements would apply only to the systems
that perform critical functions.
Compliance with HIRF requirements will be demonstrated by tests,
analysis, models, similarity with existing systems, or a combination of
these methods. The two basic options of either testing the rotorcraft
to the defined environment or laboratory testing may not be combined.
The laboratory test allows some frequency areas to be under tested and
requires other areas to have some safety margin when compared to the
defined environment. The areas required to have some safety margin are
those that have been, by past testing, shown to exhibit greater
susceptibility to adverse effects from HIRF; and laboratory tests, in
general, do not accurately represent the aircraft installation. Service
experience alone will not be acceptable since such experience in normal
flight operations may not include an exposure to HIRF. Reliance on a
system with similar design features for redundancy, as a means of
protection against the effects of external HIRF, is generally
insufficient because all elements of a redundant system are likely to
be concurrently exposed to the radiated fields.
The modulation that represents the signal most likely to disrupt
the operation of the system under test, based on its design
characteristics, should be selected. For example, flight control system
may be susceptible to 3 Hz square wave modulation while the video
signals for electronic display systems may be susceptible to 400 Hz
sinusoidal modulation. If the worst-case modulation is unknown or
cannot be determined, default modulations may be used. Suggested
default values are a 1 KHz sine wave with 80 percent depth of
modulation in the frequency range from 10 KHz to 400 MHz and 1 KHz
square wave with greater than 90 percent depth of modulation from 400
MHz to 18 GHz. For frequencies where the unmodulated signal would cause
deviations from normal operation, several different modulating signals
with various waveforms and frequencies should be applied.
Acceptable system performance would be attained by demonstrating
that the critical function components of the system under consideration
continue to perform their intended function during and after exposure
to required electromagnetic fields. Deviations from system
specifications may be acceptable but must be independently assessed by
the FAA on a case-by-case basis.
Table 1.--Field Strength Volts/Meter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency Peak Average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-100 KHz............................................ 50 50
100-500............................................... 60 60
500-2000.............................................. 70 70
2-30 MHz.............................................. 200 200
30-100................................................ 30 30
100-200............................................... 150 33
200-400............................................... 70 70
400-700............................................... 4020 935
700-1000.............................................. 1700 170
1-2 GHz............................................... 5000 990
2-4................................................... 6680 840
4-6................................................... 6850 310
6-8................................................... 3600 670
8-12.................................................. 3500 1270
12-18................................................. 3500 360
18-40................................................. 2100 750
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable
initially to the Model A109D and A109E helicopters. Should Agusta apply
at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another
model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the
special conditions would apply to that model as well, under the
provisions of Sec. 21.101(a)(1).
Conclusion
This action affects only certain unusual or novel design features
on two models of helicopter. It is not a rule of general applicability
and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of
these features on the affected helicopter.
The substance of this special condition for similar installations
in a variety of helicopters has been subjected to the notice and
comment procedure and has been finalized without substantive change. It
is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant
change from the substance contained herein. For this reason, and
because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the
helicopter, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public
notice and comment are unnecessary and impractical, and good cause
exists for adopting this special condition immediately. Therefore, this
special condition is being made effective upon issuance. The FAA is
requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that
may not have been submitted in response to prior opportunities for
comment.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Parts 21 and 29
Aircraft, Air transportation, Aviation safety, Rotorcraft, Safety.
The authority citation for this special condition is as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40105, 40113,
44701, 44702, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303.
The Special Condition
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issues the
following special condition as a part of the type certification basis
for the Agusta Model A109D and A109E helicopters.
Protection for Electrical and Electronic Systems From High Intensity
Radiated Fields
Each system that performs critical functions must be designed and
installed to ensure that the operation and operational capabilities of
these critical functions are not adversely affected when the
helicopters are exposed to high intensity radiated fields external to
the helicopters.
[[Page 29931]]
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 31, 1996.
Daniel P. Salvano,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 96-14761 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13942 Revision of Class E Airspace; Las Vegas, NM
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29936-29937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13942]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ASW-31]
Revision of Class E Airspace; Las Vegas, NM
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action revises the Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above ground level (AGL) at Las Vegas, NM. The development of
a Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach
procedure (SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 02 at Las Vegas Municipal Airport has
made this action necessary. This action is intended to provide adequate
Class E airspace to contain instrument flight rule (IFR) operations for
aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 02 at Las Vegas Municipal
Airport, Las Vegas, NM.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, August 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald J. Day, Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest
Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530,
telephone 817-222-5593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On January 31, 1996, a proposal to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to revise the Class E airspace at
Las Vegas, NM, was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 3349). A
GPS SIAP to RWY 02 developed for Las Vegas Municipal Airport, Las
Vegas, NM, requires the revision of Class E airspace at this airport.
The proposal was to establish controlled airspace extending upward from
700 feet AGL to contain IFR operations in controlled airspace during
portions of the terminal operation and while transitioning between the
enroute and terminal environments.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments to the proposal were received. The rule is adopted as
proposed.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Class E airspace designations for airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more AGL are published in Paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) revises the Class E airspace located at Las Vegas, NM, to
provide controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL for
aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 02 at Las Vegas Municipal
Airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations that need frequent and
routine amendments to keep them operationally current. It, therefore--
(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not
warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated
impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only
affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
[[Page 29937]]
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005: Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASW NM E5 Las Vegas, NM [Revised]
Las Vegas Municipal Airport, NM
(Lat. 35 deg.39'15''N., long. 105 deg.08'33''W.)
Las Vegas VORTAC
(Lat. 35 deg.39'27''N., long. 105 deg.08'08''W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.7-mile radius of Las Vegas Municipal Airport and within
2.6 miles each side of the 025 deg. radial of the Las Vegas VORTAC
extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 8.4 miles northeast of the
airport and within 2.4 miles each side of the 220 deg. radial of the
Las Vegas VORTAC extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 7.5 miles
southwest of the airport and within 1.6 miles each side of the
215 deg. bearing from the airport extending from the 6.7-mile radius
to 8.2 miles southwest of the airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 15, 1996.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-13942 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude
Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.