24560 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Public Land Order 7140

[AZ–930–1430–01; AZA 6592]

Revocation of Public Land Order No.

5298; Arizona

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Public Land Order.

SUMMARY: This order revokes in its

entirety public land order No. 5298,

which withdrew 1,062.70 acres of

public lands for the expansion and

protection of the Aravaipa Canyon

Primitive Area. The lands have been

incorporated into the National

Wilderness Preservation System to be

known as the Aravaipa Canyon

Wilderness Area, and the withdrawal is

no longer needed. The lands will remain

closed to surface entry, mining, and

mineral leasing as part of a wilderness

area.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Mezes, BLM Arizona State Office, P.O.

Box 16563, Phoenix, Arizona 85011,

602–650–0509.

By virtue of the authority vested in

the Secretary of the Interior by Section

204 of the Federal Land Policy and

Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C.

1714 (1988), it is ordered as follows:

1. Public Land Order No. 5298, which

withdrew the following described lands

for the protection and expansion of the

Aravaipa Canyon Primitive Area, is

hereby revoked in its entirety:

Gila and Salt River Meridian

T. 6 S., R. 18 E.,

Sec. 15, S1⁄2S1⁄2;

Sec. 24, S1⁄2SE1⁄4;

Sec. 25, W1⁄2E1⁄2, and W1⁄2.

T. 6 S., R. 19 E.,

Sec. 19, lot 4;

Sec. 30, lots 2 to 6, inclusive, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4,

and W1⁄2SE1⁄4.

The areas described aggregate 1,062.70

acres in Pinal and Graham Counties.

2. The lands will remain closed to all

forms of entry due to the lands being

within the Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness

Area.

Dated: April 21, 1995.

Bob Armstrong,

Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

[FR Doc. 95–11288 Filed 5–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–32–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration

46 CFR Part 381

[Docket No. R–153]

RIN 2133–AB17

Cargo Preference—U.S.-Flag Vessels;

Available U.S.-Flag Commercial

Vessels

AGENCY: Maritime Administration,

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment to the cargo

preference regulations of the Maritime

Administration (MARAD) would

provide that during the 1995 shipping

season when the St. Lawrence Seaway

is in use, MARAD will consider the

legal requirement for the carriage of

bulk agricultural commodity preference

cargoes on privately-owned ‘‘available’’

U.S.-flag commercial vessels to have

been satisfied where the cargo is

initially loaded at a Great Lakes port on

one or more U.S.-flag or foreign-flag

vessels, transferred to a U.S.-flag

commercial vessel at a Canadian

transshipment point outside the St.

Lawrence Seaway, and carried on that

U.S.-flag vessel to a foreign destination.

This amendment allows Great Lakes

ports to compete for agricultural

commodity preference cargoes during

an entire season trial period.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is

effective on May 9, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

E. Graykowski, Deputy Maritime

Administrator for Inland Waterways and

Great Lakes, Maritime Administration,

Washington, DC, 20590, Telephone

(202) 366–1718.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: United

States law at sections 901(b) (the ‘‘Cargo

Preference Act’’) and 901b, Merchant

Marine Act, 1936, as amended (the

‘‘Act’’), 46 App. U.S.C. 1241(b) and

1241f, requires that at least 75 percent

of certain agricultural product cargoes

‘‘impelled’’ by Federal programs

(preference cargoes), and transported by

sea, be carried on privately-owned

United States-flag commercial vessels,

to the extent that such vessels ‘‘are

available at fair and reasonable rates.’’

The Secretary of Transportation intends

to administer that program so that all

ports and port ranges may participate.

1994 Rulemaking

On August 8, 1994, MARAD

published a final rule on this subject in

the Federal Register (59 FR 40261). That

rule stated that it was intended to allow

U.S. Great Lakes ports to participate

with ports in other U.S. port ranges in

the carriage of bulk agricultural

commodity preference cargoes. It cited

as justification for the rule dramatic

changes in shipping conditions that

have occurred since 1960, including the

disappearance of any all-U.S.-flag

commercial ocean-going service to

foreign countries from U.S. Great Lakes

ports. It further stated that the static

configuration of the St. Lawrence

Seaway system and the evolving greater

size of commercial vessels contributed

to the disappearance of any all-U.S.-flag

service.

No preference cargo has moved on

U.S.-flag vessels out of the Great Lakes

since 1989, with the exception of one

trial shipment in 1993. Under the Food

Security Act of 1985, Public Law 99–

198, codified at 46 App. U.S.C.

1241f(c)(2), a certain minimum amount

of Government-impelled cargo was

required to be allocated to Great Lakes

ports during calendar years 1986, 1987,

1988, and 1989. That Great Lakes ‘‘setaside’’ expired in 1989, and was not

renewed by Congress. The

disappearance of Government-impelled

cargo flowing from the Great Lakes

coincided with the expiration of the

Great Lakes ‘‘set aside.’’

At the time of the opening of the 1994

Great Lakes shipping season on April 5,

1994, the Great Lakes did not have any

all-U.S.-flag ocean freight service for

carriage of bulk preference cargo. In

contrast, the total export nationwide by

non-liner vessels of USDA and USAID

agricultural assistance program cargoes

subject to cargo preference in the 1992–

1993 cargo preference year (the latest

program year for which figures are

available) amounted to 6,297,015 metric

tons, of which 4,923,244, or 78.2

percent, was transported on U.S.-flag

vessels. (Source: Maritime

Administration database.)

MARAD issued the 1994 rule to

provide Great Lakes ports with the

opportunity to compete for agricultural

commodity preference cargoes for only

the 1994 Great Lakes shipping season

cargoes, and to assess the results.

Inadequate 1994 Trial Period

As predicted by numerous

commenters on the first notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM),

published on May 11, 1994 (59 FR

24390), the timing of the final rule did

not allow for a true trial period since it

was actually in effect for less than onehalf of the 1994 Great Lakes shipping

season. Because of the long lead time

required for arranging shipments of bulk

agricultural commodity preference

cargoes, there was no real opportunity
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 24561

for U.S.-flag vessel operators to make

the necessary arrangements to bid on

preference cargoes.

Second NPRM

Because the publication of the 1994

final rule occurred too late to allow

participants in the shipment of

agricultural commodity preference

cargoes to arrange shipments from Great

Lakes ports, no shipments occurred in

1994. Accordingly, MARAD was not

able to evaluate the impact of the 1994

amendment, and issued a second NPRM

on February 1, 1995 (60 FR 6068), that

proposed to extend the trial period for

applying its policy for shipment of

preference cargoes on available U.S.-flag

vessels through the 1995 Great Lakes

shipping season.

MARAD received twelve (12)

comments on this second NPRM from

individual Great Lakes ports, a Federal

shipper agency, Great Lakes grain

carriers, grain producers and exporters,

and a commodity exchange. All

commenters enthusiastically supported

the amendment as a minimal initial

action that would allow Great Lakes

ports to participate in the bulk

agricultural cargo preference trade by

being able to offer service at competitive

rates. Most commenters supported a

longer trial period, or requested that the

rule be made permanent. They cited

equity as being the paramount

justification.

In reiterating last year’s statement that

the trial period should extend for

several navigation seasons or until U.S.-

flag vessels resume operations on the

Great Lakes, a commenter asserted that

not only is it difficult to assess any

benefits based on only one shipping

season, but that shippers are reluctant to

change their shipping patterns for a

short period of time, knowing that they

must revert back to the ‘‘old way,’’

irrespective of their recognition of a cost

advantage during that short period.

MARAD will issue another proposed

rule to extend the trial period for at least

three years if it determines that this

amendment actually was responsible for

the carriage of agricultural commodity

cargoes from Great Lakes ports to

foreign destinations on available U.S.-

flag vessels during the 1995 Great Lakes

shipping season.

Another commenter urged MARAD to

promulgate a rule that allows shipment

of agricultural commodities from a Great

Lakes port for the entire voyage, from

origin to destination, on foreign-flag

vessels where U.S.-flag vessels are not

available for such voyages from Great

Lakes ports. The commenter argued that

this policy will allow the Great Lakes

ports greater participation in USDA and

USAID agricultural assistance program

cargoes. That proposal is contrary to the

provisions and intent of the Cargo

Preference Act of 1954, and of this

rulemaking.

Based on the unequivocal support of

all the commenters for modification of

the interpretation of ‘‘available’’ U.S.-

flag commercial vessels for the carriage

of bulk agricultural commodity

preference cargoes from Great Lakes

ports, MARAD is adopting as a final

rule, without change, the text of the

NPRM.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review)

This rulemaking has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12866 and

Department of Transportation

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979). It is not

considered to be an economically

significant regulatory action under

section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, since it has

been determined that it is not likely to

result in a rule that may 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. However,

since this rule would affect other

Federal agencies, is of great interest to

the maritime industry, and has been

determined to be a significant rule

under the Department’s Regulatory

Policies and Procedures, it is considered

to be a significant regulatory action

under E.O. 12866.

MARAD expects that this rule could

allow, in the 1995 Great Lakes season,

the movement of up to 300,000 metric

tons of agricultural commodities from

Great Lakes ports, with a reduction in

the shipping cost to sponsoring Federal

agencies of up to $3 per metric ton

($900,000). Because the Great Lakes

shipping season opened on March 24,

MARAD has determined, pursuant to 5

U.S.C. 553(d), that good cause exists to

make this rule effective on publication.

MARAD will evaluate the results of

the one-season trial period before

determining whether to issue a rule to

make this arrangement permanent.

This rule has been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12866.

Federalism

The Maritime Administration has

analyzed this rulemaking in accordance

with the principles and criteria

contained in Executive Order 12612,

and it has been determined that it does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Maritime Administration certifies

that this rulemaking will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Environmental Assessment

The Maritime Administration has

considered the environmental impact of

this rulemaking and has concluded that

an environmental impact statement is

not required under the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rulemaking contains no reporting

requirement that is subject to OMB

approval under 5 CFR Part 1320,

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.)

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 381

Freight, Maritime carriers.

Accordingly, MARAD hereby amends

46 CFR part 381 as follows:

PART 381—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 381

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 46 App. U.S.C. 1101, 1114(b),

1122(d) and 1241; 49 CFR 1.66.

2. Section 381.9 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 381.9 Available U.S.-flag service for

1995.

For purposes of shipping bulk

agricultural commodities under

programs administered by sponsoring

Federal agencies from U.S. Great Lakes

ports during the 1995 shipping season,

if direct U.S.-flag service, at fair and

reasonable rates, is not available at U.S.

Great Lakes ports, a joint service

involving a foreign-flag vessel(s)

carrying cargo no farther than a

Canadian port(s) or other point(s) on the

Gulf of St. Lawrence, with

transshipment via a U.S.-flag privately

owned commercial vessel to the

ultimate foreign destination, will be

deemed to comply with the requirement

of ‘‘available’’ commercial U.S.-flag

service under the Cargo Preference Act

of 1954. Shipper agencies considering

bids resulting in the lowest landed cost

of transportation based on U.S.-flag rates

and service shall include within the

comparison of U.S.-flag rates and

service, for shipments originating in

U.S. Great Lakes ports, through rates (if

offered) to a Canadian port or other

point on the Gulf of St. Lawrence and
24562 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

a U.S.-flag leg for the remainder of the

voyage. The ‘‘fair and reasonable’’ rate

for this mixed service will be

determined by considering the U.S.-flag

component under the existing

regulations at 46 CFR Part 382 or 383,

as appropriate, and incorporating the

cost for the foreign-flag component into

the U.S.-flag ‘‘fair and reasonable’’ rate

in the same way as the cost of foreignflag vessels used to lighten U.S.-flag

vessels in the recipient country’s

territorial waters. Alternatively, the

supplier of the commodity may offer the

Cargo FOB Canadian transshipment

point, and MARAD will determine fair

and reasonable rates accordingly.

Dated: May 3, 1995.

By Order of the Maritime Administrator.

Joel Richard,

Secretary, Maritime Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–11272 Filed 5–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 88–21, Notice No. 09]

RIN No. 2127–AE25

RIN No. 2127–AE62

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards, Bus Emergency Exits and

Window Retention and Release

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule makes a number of

amendments to the agency’s standard on

bus emergency exits and window

retention and release. Among other

things, the amendments permit

manufacturers to install two emergency

exit windows as an alternative to an

emergency exit door as the first means

of satisfying recent requirements for

additional emergency exits on school

buses. The amendments also permit

non-school buses to meet either the

current non-school bus emergency exit

requirements or the recently upgraded

school bus requirements. These

amendments will increase manufacturer

flexibility in meeting emergency exit

requirements while maintaining the

existing level of safety. The

amendments also modify the

requirements specifying the number of

additional exits that are required for

school buses of varying capacity. These

amendments will provide increased

clarity and also ensure that

manufacturers meet the recently

upgraded requirements by providing

additional emergency exits rather than

by increasing the size of existing exits.

The rule also makes a number of more

minor amendments to the standard.

DATES: This final rule is effective May 9,

1996.

Manufacturers may voluntarily

comply with the amendments

promulgated by this final rule on or

after June 8, 1995.

Any petition for reconsideration of

this rule must be received by NHTSA no

later than June 8, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Any petition for

reconsideration should refer to the

docket and notice number for this rule

and be submitted to NHTSA Docket

Section, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room

5109, Washington, DC 20590. Docket

hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,

Monday through Friday. Telephone:

(202) 366–4949.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Charles Hott, Office of Vehicle Safety

Standards, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, S.W., Room 5320. Washington,

DC 20590. Telephone (202) 366–0247.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. Standard No. 217

B. November 1992 NPRM

C. December 1993 NPRM

II. Overview

III. December 1993 NPRM

A. Exit window performance requirements

B. School bus emergency exit requirements

C. Extra area credit and means for

specifying requirements for additional

school bus exits

IV. November 1992 NPRM

A. Option for non-school buses to meet

school bus requirements

B. Deletion of S5.2.2.1

V. Other issues

A. Size of retroreflective tape

B. Transpec Comments

VI. Lead Time

VII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866; DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

D. National Environmental Policy Act

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

F. Civil Justice Reform

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Standard No. 217

NHTSA has long recognized the safety

need for buses to provide means for

readily accessible emergency egress in

the event of a crash or other emergency.

The agency addressed this safety need

by issuing Safety Standard No. 217, Bus

Emergency

Exits and Window Retention Release

When the standard originally became

effective on September 1, 1973, it

required that buses other than school

buses have exits whose combined area,

in square inches, equaled or exceeded

67 times the number of designated

seating positions. The type of exit used

to comply with this requirement was

left to the choice of the manufacturer,

although the agency assumed that most

manufacturers would meet the standard

primarily by installing push-out side

windows. Moreover, the standard’s

performance requirements for

emergency exit windows effectively

required those windows to be of the

push-out type.

School buses were excluded from this

requirement for the reasons explained in

the notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM):

In view of discipline problems associated

with mandatory quick-release and exit

devices throughout a school bus which may

interfere with the school bus driver’s task,

and the added risk of children falling from

moving school buses, push-out windows for

school buses would remain optional. 35 FR

13025; August 15, 1970.

Later, in response to the Motor

Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety

Amendments of 1974, NHTSA amended

Standard No. 217 to include emergency

exit requirements for school buses.

Instead of adopting the approach used

for non-school buses, the agency

required that all new school buses have

either (1) one rear emergency door, or

(2) ‘‘one emergency door on the

vehicle’s left side that is in the rear half

of the bus passenger compartment and

is hinged on its forward side, and one

push-out rear window.’’

In response to several school bus

accidents in the late 1980’s and

recommendations by the National

Transportation Safety Board, NHTSA

subsequently upgraded Standard No.

217’s school bus requirements to

increase the number of emergency exits

required for larger school buses. This

final rule was published in the Federal

Register (57 FR 49413) on November 2,

1992, and a correction notice was

published on December 2, 1992 (57 FR

57020).

The upgraded rule required, among

other things, that the total area of the

emergency exits of each school bus be

based on the designated seating capacity

of the bus. The rule maintained the

existing requirement that all school

buses have either a rear emergency exit

door or a left-side emergency exit door

along with a rear push-out window, at

the option of the manufacturer. It also

provided, however, that the area in