Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules 67345

(A) Customer order number;

(B) Manufacturer’s name and product

code;

(C) Factory reel number and year of

manufacture;

(D) Gauge of conductors and pair size

of wire;

(E) Length of wire; and

(F) RUS designation letter ‘‘K.’’

(3) When CCSR and NMR aerial

service wires are shipped in coils the

following provisions shall apply:

(i) The diameter of the coil shall be

large enough to prevent damage to the

wire from coiling or uncoiling;

(ii) The nominal length of the wire in

a coil shall be 305 meters (1,000 feet).

No coil shall be less than 290 meters

(950 feet) long or more than 460 meters

(1,500 feet) long; however, 25 percent of

the total number of coils may be less

than 305 meters (1,000 feet);

(iii) The coils of wire shall be wound

securely with strong tape in four

separate evenly spaced places;

(iv) The coils may be protected from

damage by wrapping the coil with heavy

paper, burlap, or other suitable material

accepted by RUS prior to its use. The

use of the heavy paper, burlap, or other

suitable means of protection shall be at

the option of the manufacturer unless

specified by the end user; and

(v) Each coil shall be tagged with the

following information:

(A) Customer order number;

(B) Manufacturer’s name and product

code;

(C) Year of manufacture;

(D) Gauge of conductors and pair size

of wire;

(E) Length of wire; and

(F) RUS designation letter ‘‘K.’’

(4) In lieu of wrapping the coil with

heavy paper, burlap, or other suitable

material, the coil may be packaged in a

moisture resistant carton.

(5) When the coils are shipped in

moisture resistant cartons, each carton

shall be marked with the information

specified in paragraphs (f)(3)(v)(A)

through (f)(3)(v)(F) of this section.

(6) Other methods of shipment may be

used if accepted by RUS prior to their

use.

(7) When NMR aerial service wire is

shipped, the ends of the wire shall be

sealed in accordance with ANSI/ICEA

S–89–648–1993, paragraph 9.2.

Dated: December 19, 1995.

Jill Long Thompson,

Under Secretary, Rural Economic and

Community Development.

[FR Doc. 95–31453 Filed 12–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 888

[Docket No. 95N–0176]

Orthopedic Devices: Classification,

Reclassification, and Codification of

Pedicle Screw Spinal Systems;

Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of

comment period.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is extending to

March 4, 1996, the comment period for

the proposed rule that published in the

Federal Register of October 4, 1995 (60

FR 51946). The document proposed to

classify certain unclassified

preamendments pedicle screw spinal

systems into class II (special controls),

and to reclassify certain

postamendments pedicle screw spinal

systems from class III (premarket

approval) to class II. FDA is taking this

action in response to several requests for

an extension to assure adequate time for

preparation of comments.

DATES: Written comments by March 4,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments

to the Dockets Management Branch

(HFA–305), Food and Drug

Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr.,

rm. 1–23, Rockville, MD 20857.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark N. Melkerson, Center for Devices

and Radiological Health (HFZ–410),

Food and Drug Administration, 9200

Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850,

301–594–2036.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of October 4, 1995 (60

FR 51946), FDA published a proposed

rule to classify certain unclassified

preamendments pedicle screw spinal

systems into class II (special controls),

and to reclassify certain

postamendments pedicle screw spinal

systems from class III (premarket

approval) to class II. FDA is proposing

to place certain pedicle screw spinal

systems in class II because the agency

believes that sufficient information

exists to establish special controls to

provide reasonable assurance of its

safety and effectiveness.

Interested persons were invited to

comment by January 2, 1996. FDA

received several requests to extend the

comment period, including a request

from a United States District Court

Judge presiding over product liability

actions concerning orthopedic bone

screw products. The court requested

that FDA allow a 60-day extension

because court orders relating to the

disclosure of certain information about

pedicle screws may make it difficult for

parties involved in the litigation to

submit relevant information to FDA by

January 2, 1996.

Because FDA wants to provide

adequate time for the submission of all

relevant information related to these

important public health issues, FDA is

extending the comment period for 60

days. Accordingly, FDA finds under

section 520(d) of the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.

360j(d)) that there is good cause for such

an extension.

Interested persons may, on or before

March 4, 1996, submit to Dockets

Management Branch (address above)

written comments regarding this

proposal. Two copies of any comments

are to be submitted, except that

individuals may submit one copy.

Comments are to be identified with the

docket number found in brackets in the

heading of this document. Received

comments may be seen in the office

above between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday.

Dated: December 21, 1995.

Joseph A. Levitt,

Deputy Director for Regulations Policy, Center

for Devices and Radiological Health.

[FR Doc. 95–31460 Filed 12–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 62 and 66

[CGD 94–091]

RIN 2115–AF14

Conformance of Uniform State

Waterways Marking System and

Western Rivers Marking System with

the United States Aids to Navigation

System and the Maritime Buoyage

System of the International

Association of Lighthouse Authorities

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking and request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is

considering changes that would bring

the Uniform State Waterways Marking

System (USWMS) and the Western

Rivers Marking System (WRMS) more

into conformance with the U.S. Aids to

Navigation System (USATONS) and the
67346 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Maritime Buoyage System (MBS) of the

International Association of Lighthouse

Authorities (IALA). These changes

would help mariners avoid

misinterpreting signals they might see

when transiting different bodies of

water now subject to different marking

systems.

DATES: Please submit comments on or

before February 12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

the Executive Secretary, Marine Safety

Council (G–LRA, Room 3406) [CGD 94–

091], U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters,

2100 Second Street SW., Washington,

DC 20593–0001, or may be delivered to

room 3406 at the same address between

8 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. the

telephone number is (202) 267–1477.

The Executive Secretary maintains the

public docket for this notice and request

for comments. Comments will become

part of this docket and will be available

for inspection or copying at room 3406,

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, between

8 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LTJG Chad Asplund, Division of Short

Range Aids to Navigation, Telephone:

(202) 267–1386.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages

interested persons to participate in this

notice and request for comments by

submitting written data, views, or

arguments. Persons submitting

comments should include their names

and addresses, identify this rulemaking

[CG 94–091] and the specific section of

this notice to which each comment

applies, and give the reason for each

comment. Please submit two copies of

all comments and attachments in an

unbound format, no larger than 8+ by 11

inches, suitable for copying and

electronic filing. Persons wanting

acknowledgement of receipt of

comments should enclose stamped, selfaddressed postcards or envelopes.

Background and Purpose

In 1966 the USWMS was created to

provide a system that would adequately

mark State waters. At its inception it

was meant in part to supplement the

USATONS. It offered two types of aids

to navigation, a system of regulatory

markers as well as a system to

supplement the USATONS. It features

red and black buoys to mark lateral

hazards.

The WRMS was introduced to

establish a system that would

adequately mark the dynamic

waterways of the Mississippi River and

its Western counterparts. Some

deviations from the USATONS were

necessary to adequately mark these

waterways. The WRMS allowed for only

a few light characteristics to mark the

waterways. As the number of users

increased, and as the number of aids

increased, a need arose to differentiate

among the aids in the WRMS.

In 1982, the United States, along with

most of the world’s other maritime

Nations, became a party to the

agreement that established the MBS of

the IALA. In 1985 the United States

began converting the USATONS to

harmonize with the MBS; if finished in

1991. Yet the systems that mark the

Uniform State Waterways and the

Western Rivers are not fully in

conformance with the single system

comprising MBS and USATONS.

The purpose of this proposed change

is to develop an approach to adequately

mark the Uniform State Waterways and

Western Rivers while minimizing the

number of systems of aids to navigation.

The Coast Guard is considering the

following changes:

1. Allowing the five existing flash

characteristics authorized in the

USATONS to be used in the WRMS.

2. Using non-lateral daymarks as

crossing daymarks in the WRMS.

3. Replacing the black buoys in the

USWMS with green buoys.

4. Removing cardinal marks from the

USWMS.

5. Marking hazards in the USWMS

with the appropriate lateral marks as in

the USATONS.

Early Participation

The Coast Guard is consulting with

the National Association of State

Boating-Law Administrators and with

users in the Second Coast Guard

District, as well as with State maritime

authorities, to gather information

required for this proposed change.

Solicitation of Views

The Coast Guard solicits comments

from all segments of the marine

community and other interested persons

on economic and other impacts and

[suggested alternatives related to aids to

navigation system] to adequately mark

the Uniform State Waterways and the

Western Rivers. Persons submitting

comments should include their names

and addresses, identify this docket [CG

94–091], identify their concern or

concerns, state what impacts may result

from one or more of the alternatives

identified, suggest other alternatives,

and provide reasons to support the

suggested alternatives. The Coast Guard

is particularly interested in receiving

information, views, data, and reasons on

the following questions and areas of

concern:

1. WHAT WOULD BE THE

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF A

PROPOSED CHANGE IN LIGHTING

CHARACTERISTICS ON THE

WESTERN RIVERS?

Would users be adversely affected by

having additional lighting

characteristics within the WRMS?

What financial impact would this

have?

Who are the persons most affected?

2. WHAT OTHER FACTORS AFFECT

A PROPOSED CHANGE IN LIGHTING?

Is there any other information that

you feel may be helpful in

implementing this change with less

impact on the affected persons?

3. SHOULD CROSSING DAYBOARDS

USED IN THE WRMS BE REPLACED

BY THE NON-LATERAL DAYBOARDS

USED IN THE USATONS?

Should the currently used single-color

crossing dayboards be replaced by the

red-and-white or green-and-white nonlateral marks for better visibility?

4. WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO

MARK OBSTRUCTIONS IN THE

USWMS?

Should cardinal marks be retained, or

should the States adopt a system similar

to that of the USATONS?

5. SHOULD THE MEANING OF THE

RED-AND-WHITE STRIPED BUOYS IN

THE USWMS BE CHANGED SO SUCH

BUOYS MARK SAFE WATER AS IN

THE USATONS?

Dated: December 20, 1995.

Rudy K. Peschel,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office

of Navigation Safety and Waterway Services.

[FR Doc. 95–31376 Filed 12–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD13–95–050]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

South Slough, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: At the request of the Oregon

Department of Transportation (ODOT),

the Coast Guard is considering an

amendment to the regulations governing

the operation of the South Slough

Bridge at Charleston, Oregon. The

proposed change would require one

hour notice at all times when requesting

openings of the drawspan of the bridge

for the passage of vessels.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 27, 1996.