3598 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 1995 / Proposed Rules

in advertisements or in writing at time

of sale?

Regulatory Analysis and Notices

The Department has determined that

this action is not a significant regulatory

action under Executive Order 12866 or

under the Department’s Regulatory

Policies and Procedures. The

Department has placed a regulatory

evaluation that examines the estimated

costs and impacts of the proposal in the

docket.

The Department certifies that this

rule, if adopted, would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Although many ticket agents and some

air carriers are small entities, the

Department believes that the costs of

notification will be minimal. The

Department seeks comment on whether

there are unidentified small entity

impacts that should be considered. If

comments provide information that

there are significant small entity

impacts, the Department will prepare a

regulatory flexibility analysis at the final

rule stage.

The Department does not believe that

there would be sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a federalism assessment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The proposed rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by the Office of

Management and Budget under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

2507 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 259

Air carriers, Foreign air carriers.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, the Department proposes to

amend Title 14, Chapter II, Subchapter

A by adding a new part 259 to read as

follows:

PART 259—DISINSECTION OF

AIRCRAFT

Sec.

259.1 Purpose.

259.2 Applicability.

259.3 Definitions.

259.4 Notice requirement.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40113(a) and 41712.

§ 259.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to ensure

that ticket agents in the United States,

air carriers and foreign air carriers tell

consumers when the air transportation

they are proposing to buy requires that

the aircraft cabin will be sprayed with

insecticide while passengers and crew

are on board.

§ 259.2 Applicability.

This rule applies to:

(a) Direct air carriers and foreign

direct air carriers operating aircraft in

which the initial flight segment of

flights outbound from the United States

is disinsected by spraying the aircraft

cabin with insecticide while passengers

and crew are on board.

(b) Ticket agents doing business in the

United States that sell passenger air

transportation services on flights

described above.

§ 259.3 Definitions.

(a) Carrier means any direct air carrier

or foreign air carrier as defined in 49

U.S.C. 40102(2) or 49 U.S.C. 40102(21),

respectively, that is engaged in

passenger air transportation, including

by wet lease.

(b) Ticket agent has the meaning

ascribed to it in 49 U.S.C. 40102(40).

§ 259.4 Notice requirement.

In any direct oral communication

with a prospective customer concerning

a flight that will be required to be

sprayed with insecticide while

passengers are on board, a ticket agent

in the United States or a carrier shall

verbally deliver the following warning:

Federal regulations require that we warn

you that during Flight Number [identify

flight number], the airplane cabin will be

sprayed with insecticide while passengers

are on board. This is a requirement of the

Government of [identify name of country].

Further, upon request, the ticket agent

in the United States or the carrier shall

immediately provide the name of the

insecticide used on that flight.

Issued in Washington, DC on December 12,

1994.

Patrick V. Murphy,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and

International Affairs.

[FR Doc. 95–1260 Filed 1–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms

27 CFR Part 24

[Notice No. 805; Notice No. 800]

RIN 1512–AB26

Materials and Processes Authorized

for the Production of Wine and for the

Treatment of Juice, Wine and Distilling

Material; Reopening of Comment

Period and Correction (93F–059P)

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms (ATF), Treasury.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of

comment period and correction.

SUMMARY: In Notice No. 800 (59 FR

49870), published in the Federal

Register on September 30, 1994, the

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms (ATF) solicited comments

from winemakers, consumers and other

interested parties as to whether the use

of certain materials and processes is

acceptable in ‘‘good commercial

practice’’ in the production, cellar

treatment and finishing of wine. ATF is

reopening the comment period in order

to allow all interested persons more

time to prepare and submit comments.

This notice also makes editorial

correction to the text of the proposed

regulations as described in the

supplementary information below:

DATES: Written comments must be

received by March 20, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to:

Chief, Wine, Beer and Spirits

Regulations Branch, Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms, P.O. Box 50221,

Washington, DC 20091–0221: Notice

No. 800.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert White, Wine, Beer and Spirits

Regulations Branch, 650 Massachusetts

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20226;

telephone (202) 927–8230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 30, 1994, ATF

published a notice of proposed

rulemaking, Notice No. 800 (59 FR

49870), in the Federal Register. In the

notice, AFT proposed the use of three

wine treating processes and one wine

treating material in the production,

cellar treatment, and/or finishing of

wine. The processes included the

spinning cone column, reverse osmosis

and ion exchange used in combination

within a closed system, and

ultrafiltration at transmembrane

pressures below 200 pounds per square

inch (psi).

The new wine treating material

proposed was urease enzyme, derived

from Lactobacillus fermentum. This

new material was proposed to be used

to reduce levels of naturally occurring

urea in wine to help prevent the

formation of ethyl carbamate during

storage.

Reopening of Comment Period

ATF has received a request from the

Delegation of the European Commission

(EC) to extend the comment period for

60 days. The EC stated that this

additional time was necessary due to
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 1995 / Proposed Rules 3599

the complicated technical issues raised

in the proposed rulemaking.

ATF agrees that the proposed

rulemaking contains several wine

treating processes that are technically

complex and that may require more

time than usual to analyze and prepare

comments for submission.

Consequently, in order to allow all

interested persons to comment fully,

ATF has decided to reopen the

comment period, which originally

closed on November 29, 1994, for 60

days from the date of publication of this

notice in the Federal Register.

All written comments received will be

considered in the development of a

decision on this matter. Comments that

provide the factual basis supporting the

views or suggestions presented will be

particularly helpful in developing a

reasoned regulatory decision on this

matter.

Correction

In Notice No. 800, 59 FR 49870, on

page 49874, in the ‘‘Reference or

limitation’’ column of the table for

reverse osmosis, the words ‘‘off flavors

in wine’’ in the third line should be

deleted. In addition, the word ‘‘virous’’

in the last line should be changed to

read ‘‘vinous.’’

Drafting Information

The principal author of this document

is Robert White, Wine, Beer and Spirits

Regulations Branch, Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 24

Administrative practice and

procedure, Authority delegations,

Claims Electronic funds transfers,

Excise taxes, Exports, Food additives,

Fruit juices, Labeling, Liquors,

Packaging and containers, Reporting

requirements, Research, Scientific

equipment, Spices and flavorings,

Surety bonds, Transportation,

Warehouses, Wine and vinegar.

Authority: This notice is issued under the

authority of 26 U.S.C. 7805.

Approved: January 5, 1995.

Daniel R. Black,

Acting Director.

[FR Doc. 95–1089 Filed 1–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–31–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

36 CFR Part 68

RIN 1024–AC24

The Secretary of the Interior’s

Standards for Historic Preservation

Projects

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The National Park Service

(NPS) proposes to revise 36 CFR part 68,

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards

for Historic Preservation Projects.

Published in 1978, the standards apply

to all proposed grant-in-aid projects

assisted through the National Historic

Preservation Fund, focusing primarily

on development projects involving

buildings. Seven approaches to project

work are defined in that document:

Acquisition, protection, stabilization,

preservation, rehabilitation, restoration,

and reconstruction. Those standards are

organized with general standards that

apply to all historic preservation grantin-aid projects, and specific standards

that apply to specific grant-in aid

projects, as appropriate. This proposed

revision reduces the work approaches

from seven to four: preservation,

rehabilitation, restoration, and

reconstruction. The total number of

standards is subsequently reduced from

77 to 34; the acquisition section is

deleted; and protection and stabilization

are consolidated under preservation. In

addition, the citation referencing the

Tax Reform Act of 1976 is deleted.

The revised Standards apply to all

properties defined in the National

Register of Historic Places: buildings,

structures, sites, landscapes, objects,

and districts. The goal of revision is to

reduce the part in length, sharpen it in

format and language and, in

consequence, make it easier to

understand and apply. Because of their

broader application to all cultural

property types, the revised standards are

titled, ‘‘The Secretary of the Interior’s

Standards for the Treatment of Historic

Properties’’. However, the philosophy of

the revised standards remains

unchanged and is consistent with

existing historic preservation

authorities.

DATES: Written comments will be

accepted through February 17, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to: Chief, Preservation

Assistance Division, P.O. Box 37127,

Washington, DC 20013–7127.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay

Weeks, (202) 343–9593.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Secretary of the Interior’s

Standards for Historic Preservation

Projects were codified December 7,

1978, at 36 CFR part 1207 (43 FR

57250), and redesignated at 36 CFR part

68 on July 1, 1981 (46 FR 34329). These

Standards are applied to all proposed

grant-in-aid projects assisted through

the National Historic Preservation Fund

(HPF). They have focused primarily on

acquisition and development projects

for buildings listed in the National

Register of Historic Places.

The NPS is proposing to revise 36

CFR part 68, The Secretary of the

Interior’s Standards for Historic

Preservation Projects, and replace it

with broader standards to include all

cultural property types. The proposed

revision changes the title of the part to

‘‘The Secretary of the Interior’s

Standards for the Treatment of Historic

Properties’’. Revisions to the existing

Standards began in 1990 in conjunction

with the National Conference of State

Historic Preservation Officers, National

Trust for Historic Preservation, and a

number of other outside organizations.

Standards have been evolving over time,

with the majority of the concepts

proposed here having been practiced

successfully in field application. These

practices are now being proposed as

revisions to codified standards and are,

in several ways, broader in approach

and, most important, easier to use.

First, they may be applied to all

historic resource types, including

buildings, sites, landscapes, structures,

objects, and districts.

Second, they eliminate the general

and specific standards format, which

tended to create a lengthy rule that was

also confusing. In the existing rule, eight

general standards apply to every project,

even though the goals of work differ

dramatically. In addition, specific

standards apply to specific types of

projects, thus acknowledging the

differences in work approaches, but

resulting in a total of 77 standards. The

revised standards remedy organizational

problems that had existed in the earlier

standards and create a clearer document

for the user. For example, the

definitions of the different treatments

are expanded to assist selection of the

most appropriate one; § 68.4(a) relating

to acquisition has been deleted because

it is not a treatment; and protection and

stabilization are consolidated under a

single preservation treatment rather

than being cited separately. As a result,

the total number of treatments has been

reduced from seven to four.