3596 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 1995 / Proposed Rules

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 93–ASW–60]

Proposed Establishment of Class E

Airspace; Alta Vista Ranch Airport,

Marfa, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: This action withdraws a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

that was published in the Federal

Register on July 21, 1994. That proposal

duplicated an earlier NPRM that was

published on March 31, 1994. Both

actions proposed to establish Class E

airspace extending upward from 700

feet above ground level (AGL) at Alta

Vista Ranch Airport, Marfa, Texas.

Except for the comment period, the

March 31, 1994, proposal is identical to

the July 21, 1994, proposal.

Accordingly, the duplicate proposal

published July 21, 1994, is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alvin E. DeVane, System Management

Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest

Region, Department of Transportation,

Federal Aviation Administration, Fort

Worth, TX 76193–0530; telephone: (817)

222–5595.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Proposed Rule

On March 31, 1994, an NPRM was

published in the Federal Register to

establish Class E airspace extending

upward from 700 feet above ground

level (AGL) at Alta Vista Ranch Airport,

Marfa, TX (59 FR 15137). That proposal

was prompted by the development of a

new standard instrument approach

procedure (SIAP) to the Alta Vista

Ranch Airport, Marfa, TX. A duplicate

NPRM for Class E airspace at Marfa, TX,

was also published in the Federal

Register on July 21, 1994 (59 FR 37187).

The March 31, 1994 proposal was

identical to the July 21, 1994 proposal

except for the comment period. No

comments objecting to either proposal

have been received. Therefore, in order

to eliminate duplicate proposals for

Class E airspace at Marfa, TX, the

duplicate NPRM published on July 21,

1994 is being withdrawn.

Withdrawal of this notice of proposed

rulemaking constitutes only such action,

and does not preclude the agency from

issuing another notice in the future, nor

does it commit the agency to any course

of action in the future.

Since this action only withdraws a

notice of proposed rulemaking, it is

neither a proposed nor a final rule and

therefore, is not covered under

Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034,

February 26, 1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

The Withdrawal

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me, the NPRM,

Airspace Docket No. 92–ASW–60, as

published in the Federal Register on

July 21, 1994 (59 FR 37187), is hereby

withdrawn.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. app. 1348(a), 1354(a),

1510; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR

11.69.

Issued in Fort Worth, TX on January 4,

1995.

James R. Nausley,

Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest

Region.

[FR Doc. 95–1142 Filed 1–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 259

[Docket No. 50031; Notice 95–2]

RIN 2105–AC14

Aircraft Disinsection

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Transportation proposes to issued a rule

that would require U.S. airlines, foreign

airlines and their agents at time of

booking transportation, to notify

individuals purchasing tickets on flight

segments originating in the United

States if the aircraft will be sprayed with

insecticide while passengers are on

board and to provide immediately upon

request the name of the insecticide

used. This action is taken at the

initiative of the Department.

DATES: The Department requests

comments by March 20, 1995. The

Department will consider late comments

only to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

the Docket Clerk, Docket No. 50031,

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400

7th Street, SW., Room 4107,

Washington, DC 20590. To facilitate

consideration of the comments, we ask

commenters to file 5 copies of each set

of comments. The docket will be

available for inspection at this address

from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday

through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Arnold G. Konheim, U.S. Department of

Transportation (P–13), 400 7th Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590 (202) 366–

4849.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The treatment of aircraft to kill insects

(aircraft disinsection) has been an

established practice throughout the

world for a number of years. In fact,

since the 1940’s, nations have had the

right to require the disinsection of

inbound international aircraft flights

under Annex 9 (Facilitation) of the

Chicago The treatment of aircraft to kill

insects (aircraft disinsection) has been

an Convention for reasons of public

health and agriculture. Recently,

concerns have arisen about the harmful

effects of certain disinsection

treatments. However as a signatory of

the Chicago Convention, the U.S. cannot

forbid any other country from requiring

the disinsection of flights landing in

that country’s territory.

U.S. Experience

During the late 1930’s, the United

States Public Health Service instituted

insecticide spraying requirements

covering all aircraft arriving at any U.S.

port from an area infected with any

insect-borne communicable disease.

However, in 1979, the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

amended the Foreign Quarantine

Regulations (42 CFR Part 71) to

discontinue requiring routine spraying

because of concern for the health of

passengers and crew, and the lack of

evidence that aircraft spraying played a

significant role in disease control, and

the belief that discontinuation of

spraying would not present a significant

public health threat. Conversely, the

spraying caused undue discomfort to

many passengers, and had the potential

for creating acute allergic reactions,

asthmatic attacks, and other allergic or

respiratory problems in certain

passengers. Furthermore, yellow fever

vaccine was readily available and very

effective in providing long-term

immunity for travelers going abroad,

and routine mosquito surveillance and

abatement procedures around U.S.

international airports were utilized to

prevent the introduction and spread of

insect vectors.

Since routine spraying of aircraft was

discontinued in the United States in

1979, there have been no outbreaks of

vector-borne disease in the United

States that can be attributed to imported

vectors.