34840 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Proposed Rules

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

In consideration on the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as

follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,

CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND

CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS;

AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING

POINTS

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.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9E, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated September 10, 1997, and effective

September 16, 1997, is amended as

follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas

extending upward from 700 feet or more

above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASO KY E5 Hartford, KY [New]

Ohio County Airport

(lat. 37°27′30′′ N, long. 86°50′59′′ W)

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet or more above the surface of the earth

within a 6.4-mile radius of Ohio County

Airport.

* * * * *

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 18,

1998.

John R. Schroeter,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division,

Southern Region.

[FR Doc. 98–16958 Filed 6–25–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[OR–2–0001; FRL–6116–4]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Plans for Designated Facilities and

Pollutants: Oregon

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve

the Section 111(d) State Plan submitted

by Oregon on May 14, 1997. The State

Plan was submitted by Oregon to satisfy

certain Federal Clean Air Act

requirements. In the Final Rules Section

of this Federal Register, the EPA is

approving the State’s Plan submittal as

a direct final rule without prior proposal

because the Agency views this as a

noncontroversial submittal and

anticipates that it will not receive any

significant, material, and adverse

comments. A detailed rationale for the

approval is set forth in the direct final

rule. If no significant, material, and

adverse comments are received in

response to this proposed rule, no

further activity is contemplated in

relation to this proposed rule. If the EPA

receives adverse comments, the direct

final rule will be withdrawn and all

public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. The EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on this action.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received in writing by July 27,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Catherine Woo,

Environmental Protection Specialist, at

the EPA Regional Office listed below.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

proposed rule are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations. The

interested persons wanting to examine

these documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least 24 hours before the day of the

visit.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 10, Office of Air Quality, 1200

6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.

The State of Oregon, Department of

Environmental Quality, 811 SW Sixth

Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Catherine Woo, Office of Air Quality

(OAQ–107), EPA, 1200 6th Avenue,

Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553–1814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information provided in the Direct Final

action which is located in the Rules

Section of this Federal Register.

Dated: June 8, 1998.

Chuck Findley,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

[FR Doc. 98–17120 Filed 6–25–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR 197

[USCG–1998–3786]

RIN 2115–AF64

Commercial Diving Operations

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard requests

comments on the type and scope of

needed revisions to the commercial

diving operations regulations. The

regulations are over 20 years old and do

not include current safety and

technology standards and industry

practices. At this early stage of the

rulemaking process we need

information on current safety practices,

diving technology, and industry

standards to help us identify the scope

of any necessary regulatory revisions.

DATES: Comments must reach the

Docket Management Facility on or

before September 24, 1998.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to

the Docket Management Facility

[USCG–1998–3786], U.S. Department of

Transportation, room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC

20590–0001, or deliver them to room

PL–401, located on the Plaza Level of

the Nassif Building at the same address,

between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The telephone number is 202–366–

9329.

The Docket Management Facility

maintains the public docket for this

rulemaking. Comments, and documents

indicated in this preamble, will become

part of this docket and will be available

for inspection or copying at room PL–

401, located on the Plaza Level of the

Nassif Building at the same address,

between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

You may also access this docket on the

Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

A copy of the Association of Diving

Contractors’ (ADC) proposed changes to

the Coast Guard commercial diving

regulations and of its Consensus

Standards are available in the public

docket at the above address or on the

Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or you

may obtain a copy by contacting the

project manager at the number in FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

questions on this advance notice of

rulemaking, contact Lieutenant Diane

Kalina, Project Manager, Vessel and
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Proposed Rules 34841

Facility Operating Standards Division,

Coast Guard, telephone 202–267–1181.

For questions on viewing, or submitting

material to the docket, contact Carol

Kelley, Coast Guard Dockets Team

Leader, or Paulette Twine, Chief,

Documentary Services Division,

Department of Transportation,

telephone 202–366–9329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages

interested persons to participate in this

rulemaking by submitting written data,

views, or arguments. Persons submitting

comments should include their names

and addresses, identify this advance

notice [USCG–1998–3786] and the

specific section or question in this

document to which each comment

applies, and give the reason for each

comment. Please submit all comments

and attachments in an unbound format,

no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable

for copying and electronic filing. If you

want acknowledgment of receipt of your

comments, you should enclose a

stamped, self-addressed postcard or

envelope.

The Coast Guard will consider all

comments received during the comment

period when developing its proposed

changes to the regulations.

The Coast Guard plans no public

meetings. You may request a public

meeting by submitting a comment

requesting one to the address under

ADDRESSES. The request should include

the reasons why a meeting would be

beneficial. If the Coast Guard

determines that a meeting should be

held, we will announce the time and

place in a later notice in the Federal

Register.

Purpose

The Coast Guard needs your

comments and information on the issues

contained in this advance notice to help

us define the scope of any necessary

revisions to the commercial diving

operations regulations in 46 CFR 197,

Subpart B. The regulations are over 20

years old and do not include current

safety and technology standards and

industry practices. At this early stage of

the rulemaking process we need

information on current safety practices,

diving technology, and industry

standards to help us identify necessary

regulatory revisions.

Background

The existing commercial diving

regulations were published in 1977 and

only minor changes have been made to

them since then. In 1994, the

Association of Diving Contractors

(ADC), a diving industry trade

organization, submitted proposed

regulatory changes to the Coast Guard

and requested that the Coast Guard

revise its regulations accordingly. A

copy of their proposed changes is

available in the public docket. ADC’s

proposal was reviewed by over 140

General Members (operating companies)

of ADC; their Technical and their

Safety, Medical and Education

Committees; and their Board of

Directors. ADC also suggested that we

adopt their Consensus Standards,

possibly through incorporation by

reference. A copy of the Consensus

Standards is also available in the public

docket. The Coast Guard will consider

ADC’s proposed changes when

developing its proposed revisions to the

commercial diving operations

regulations, but would like to receive

your comments on the ADC proposal. A

copy of ADC’s proposal is also available

by contacting the Coast Guard point of

contact under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

Preliminary Regulatory Assessment

This rulemaking is not likely to be

classified as a significant regulatory

action under section 3(f) of Executive

Order 12866 and is not likely to be

significant under the regulatory policies

and procedures of the Department of

Transportation (44 FR 11040; February

26, 1979). A draft regulatory evaluation

under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory

policies and procedures of the

Department of Transportation would be

prepared to support any future Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

The Coast Guard is not yet able to

prepare a benefit-cost analysis assessing

the impact of potential changes to the

commercial diving operations

regulations because specific changes

have not been identified. However, the

Coast Guard would like your comments

on the cost estimate provided by ADC.

According to a 1995 estimate by ADC,

their proposed regulatory changes

would likely not cost more than

$300,000 to implement on an industrywide basis. ADC also estimates that

annualized costs would be minimal. We

would like your comments on whether

or not ADC’s cost estimate is reasonable

given the scope of ADC’s

recommendations.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

[5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.], the Coast Guard

must consider whether a potential

rulemaking would have significant

economic impacts on a substantial

number of small entities. ‘‘Small

entities’’ include small businesses, notfor-profit organizations that are

independently owned and operated and

are not dominant in their fields, and

governmental jurisdictions with

populations of less than 50,000.

Some commercial diving companies

subject to our regulations may be small

entities. Because we have not yet

proposed specific revisions and because

the number of affected small entities has

not been identified, we cannot

accurately estimate the potential impact

on small entities at this time. As part of

the required 5 U.S.C. 610 review of

regulations affecting small entities, we

are requesting information at this early

stage about the aspects of this

rulemaking which may affect small

entities, so we can evaluate and

minimize the impact of proposed

changes on small entities.

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 [Pub. L. 104–21],

the Coast Guard wants to assist small

entities to understand this advance

notice so they can better evaluate the

potential effects of any future

rulemaking on them and participate in

the rulemaking process. If you believe

that your small business, organization,

or agency may be affected by this

rulemaking, please explain how you

could be affected, and tell us what

flexibility or compliance alternatives the

Coast Guard should consider to

minimize the burden on you while

promoting commercial diving safety. If

you have questions concerning this

advance notice, you may call the Coast

Guard point of contact designated in

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We

also maintain a small business

regulatory assistance Web Page at http:/

/www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/regs/

reghome.htm that has current

information on small entity issues and

proposed Coast Guard regulations. To

help small entities become more

involved in this rulemaking, the Coast

Guard will mail copies of this advance

notice to Small Business Development

Center (SBDC) State Directors

nationwide for distribution to local

SBDC offices and interested small

businesses.

Collection of Information

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

[44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.], the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) reviews

each proposed rule that contains a

collection of information requirement to

determine whether the practical value of

the information is worth the burden

imposed by its collection. As defined in

5 CFR 1320.3(c), ‘‘collection of
34842 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Proposed Rules

information’’ includes reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling,

and other, similar actions. The Coast

Guard will review the existing

information collection requirements in

46 CFR 197.480 through 46 CFR 197.488

to either validate existing burdens or to

reduce or eliminate burdens that are no

longer necessary.

Questions

We request your comments and any

data or information that would answer

the following questions, as well as

comments on any other part of the

current regulations that should be

revised. In responding to a question,

please explain your reasons for each

answer so that we can carefully weigh

the consequences and impacts of any

future requirements we may propose. In

addition, please provide relevant data

(accident data would be particularly

useful), if possible, that will support the

need for a revision to the commercial

diving operations regulations.

1. Based on your review of the ADC

submission to the Coast Guard, which

revisions should the Coast Guard

include in its proposed rule, not include

in a proposed rule, or revise and include

in a proposed rule? Why?

2. Should the Coast Guard adopt the

ADC Consensus Standards or any other

written industry standards? If so, which

ones and why?

3. Is ADC’s cost estimate of

$300,000.00 for implementing their

proposed regulatory changes

reasonable? If not, please explain why

and, if possible, provide your own cost

estimate.

4. What definitions in the existing

regulations should be updated or

deleted? Please explain. Are there other

terms that the Coast Guard should

define in the regulations? Please

explain.

5. Should dynamically positioned

vessels (vessels with an installed system

that automatically maintains the

position of the vessel within a specified

tolerance by controlling onboard

thrusters to counter the forces of the

wind, waves and currents) and remotely

operated vehicles be addressed in the

regulations? If so, what particular issues

should the Coast Guard propose to

regulate?

6. Should the Coast Guard propose

regulations concerning diving in

contaminated waters? If yes, how

should it be addressed?

7. Should the Coast Guard propose

regulations concerning one atmosphere

observation bells, suits or submersibles?

If yes, how should it be addressed?

8. Should the Coast Guard propose

regulations concerning bell bounce (a

diving procedure whereby a diving bell

is used to transport divers under

atmospheric pressure to a work site, and

subsequently to transport the divers

back to the surface in a decompression

status)? If yes, how should it be

addressed?

9. Should the Coast Guard propose

regulations concerning saturation diving

in more detail? If yes, how should it be

addressed?

10. Should the Coast Guard propose

regulations concerning requirements for

back-up equipment at the dive site? If

yes, how should it be addressed?

11. Should the Coast Guard propose

regulations concerning minimum

training requirements for divers? If yes,

how should it be addressed?

12. If you think the regulations should

include minimum training

requirements, please answer the

following questions:

a. What courses or information should

the training include?

b. What should be the minimum

number of hours required for training?

c. What would be the benefits of

establishing minimum training

requirements?

d. Should training organizations or

providers meet certification

requirements? If so, what organization

should certify the training organizations

or providers?

13. Should diving supervisors be

licensed by the Coast Guard to ensure

compliance with federal regulations?

Please explain the reason for your

choice and, if your answer is ‘‘yes’’,

provide examples, if possible, of

situations in which a licensed diving

supervisor would have improved a

situation.

14. If you are a small entity as defined

under ‘‘Small Entities’’ and believe you

will be affected by potential changes to

the commercial diving regulations,

please explain what flexibility or

compliance options the Coast Guard

should consider and how these options

would minimize the burden on small

entities, while promoting commercial

diving safety.

Dated: June 19, 1998.

Joseph J. Angelo,

Acting Assistant Commandant for Marine

Safety and Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 98–17069 Filed 6–25–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[Docket No. 980608151–8151–01;

I.D.122497B]

RIN 0648–AK43

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Golden

Crab Fishery of the South Atlantic

Region; Gear and Vessel Management

Measures

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed

rule to implement a regulatory

amendment prepared by the South

Atlantic Fishery Management Council

(Council) in accordance with framework

procedures for adjusting management

measures of the Fishery Management

Plan for the Golden Crab Fishery of the

South Atlantic Region (FMP). For the

golden crab fishery in the South

Atlantic exclusive economic zone (EEZ),

the regulatory amendment would revise

the vessel size limitations applicable

when a vessel permit is transferred to

another vessel and would extend

through January 31, 1999, the

authorized use of wire cable for a

mainline attached to a golden crab trap.

In addition, NMFS proposes to remove

from the regulations the eligibility

criteria and procedures for obtaining

initial commercial vessel permits in the

South Atlantic golden crab fishery. Such

criteria and procedures are no longer

applicable. The intended effects of this

proposed rule are to allow for additional

evaluation of cable used as mainlines

for traps, to provide greater flexibility

for fishermen to fish with vessels of

different lengths without adversely

affecting the FMP’s cap on fishing effort,

and to simplify the regulations.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before July 13, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed

rule must be sent to Peter Eldridge,

Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721

Executive Center Drive N., St.

Petersburg, FL 33702.

Requests for copies of the framework

regulatory amendment, which includes

an environmental assessment, a

regulatory impact review (RIR), and a

social impact assessment/fishery impact

statement, should be sent to the South