8206 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore,

in accordance with Executive Order

12612, it is determined that this

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation (1)

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact, positive or negative,

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. App. 1354(a), 1421

and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR

11.89.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding a new airworthiness directive to

read as follows:

Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (ECD):

Docket No. 94–SW–19–AD.

Applicability: Model MBB–BK 117 A–1,

A–3, A–4, B–1, B–2, and C–1 helicopters,

certificated in any category.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To detect movement of a balance weight,

severe vibrations, and a subsequent

precautionary landing, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within the next 5 hours time-in-service

(TIS) after the effective date of this AD, and

thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 50 hours

TIS, visually inspect the upper and lower

surface of the main rotor blades (blades) in

the area of the outboard lead balance weight

in the marked inspection area for signs of

bulging, in accordance with Paragraph 2.A. of

the Accomplishment Instructions of

Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (ECD) Alert

Service Bulletin ASB–MBB–BK 117–10–108,

Revision 1, dated October 14, 1994.

(b) If a marked inspection area is not

visible, mark the area in accordance with

Paragraph 2.A. of the Accomplishment

Instructions of Eurocopter Deutschland

GmbH (ECD) Alert Service Bulletin ASBMBB-BK 117–10–108, Revision 1, dated

October 14, 1994, and then inspect in

accordance with paragraph (a) of this AD.

(c) If bulging exceeds 1mm in height,

remove the blade and replace it with an

airworthy blade in accordance with the

applicable maintenance manual.

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used when approved by the Manager,

Rotorcraft Standards Staff, FAA, Rotorcraft

Directorate. Operators shall submit their

requests through an FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may concur or

comment and then send it to the Manager,

Rotorcraft Standards Staff.

Note: Information concerning the existence

of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Rotorcraft Standards Staff.

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the helicopter

to a location where the requirements of this

AD can be accomplished.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February

6, 1995.

Eric Bries,

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–3514 Filed 2–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 93–NM–219–AD]

Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed

Model L–1011–385–1 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to all

Lockheed Model L–1011–385–1 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

implementation of a Supplemental

Inspection Document (SID) program of

structural inspections to detect fatigue

cracking, and repair, if necessary, to

ensure continued airworthiness of these

airplanes as they approach the

manufacturer’s original fatigue design

life goal. This proposal is prompted by

a structural re-evaluation by the

manufacturer that identified certain

structural details where fatigue damage

is likely to occur. The actions specified

by the proposed AD are intended to

prevent fatigue cracking that could

compromise the structural integrity of

these airplanes.

DATES: Comments must be received by

April 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 93–NM–

219–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Lockheed Aeronautical Systems

Support Company, Field Support

Department, Dept. 693, Zone 0755, 2251

Lake Park Drive, Smyrna, Georgia

30080. This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at

the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,

Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office,

Campus Building, 1701 Columbia

Avenue, Suite 2–160, College Park,

Georgia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Peters, Aerospace Engineer,

Flight Test Branch, ACE–160A, FAA,

Small Airplane Directorate, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office, Campus

Building, 1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite

2–160, College Park, Georgia 30337–

2748; telephone (404) 305–7367; fax

(404) 305–7348.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications shall

identify the Rules Docket number and

be submitted in triplicate to the address

specified above. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments, specified above, will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposals contained

in this notice may be changed in light

of the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 8207

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 93–NM–219–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

ANM–103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

93–NM–219–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

In April 1988, a transport category

airplane managed to land after tiny

cracks in rivet holes in the upper

fuselage linked together, causing

structural failure and explosive

decompression. An 18-foot section

ripped from the fuselage. This accident

focused greater attention on the problem

of aging aircraft.

In June 1988, the FAA sponsored a

conference on aging airplane issues,

which was attended by representatives

of the aviation industry from around the

world. It became obvious that, because

of the tremendous increase in air travel,

the relatively slow pace of new airplane

production, and the apparent economic

feasibility of operating older technology

airplanes rather than retiring them,

increased attention needed to be

focused on this aging fleet and

maintaining its continued operational

safety.

The Air Transport Association (ATA)

of America and the Aerospace

Industries Association (AIA) of America

committed to identifying and

implementing procedures to ensure

continued structural airworthiness of

aging transport category airplanes. An

Airworthiness Assurance Working

Group (AAWG), with representatives

from the aircraft operators,

manufacturers, regulatory authorities,

and other aviation representatives, was

originally established in August 1988.

The objective of the AAWG was to

sponsor ‘‘Task Groups’’ to:

1. Select service bulletins, applicable

to each airplane model in the transport

fleet, to be recommended for mandatory

modification of aging airplanes,

2. Develop corrosion directed

inspections and prevention programs,

3. Review the adequacy of each

operator’s structural maintenance

program,

4. Review and update the

Supplemental Inspection Documents

(SID), and

5. Assess repair quality.

The Task Group assigned to review

Lockheed Model L–1011–385 series

airplanes completed its work on Item 1

(mandatory structural modifications),

above, in June 1990. The Task Group’s

recommendations are contained in

Revision 1 of Lockheed Service Bulletin

093–51–035, ‘‘Structures—Aging

Aircraft Structural Modifications and

Inspections—Collector Service

Bulletin,’’ dated December 16, 1991.

The FAA issued AD 94–05–01,

amendment 39–8839 (59 FR 10275,

March 4, 1994), which mandates the

installation of the modifications

specified in that document.

The Task Group completed its work

on Item 2 (corrosion-directed

inspections) and developed a baseline

program for controlling corrosion

problems that may jeopardize the

continued airworthiness of the

Lockheed Model L–1011 fleet. This

program is contained in Lockheed

Document Number LR 31889,

‘‘Corrosion Prevention and Control

Program, TriStar L–1011,’’ dated March

15, 1991. The FAA issued AD 93–20–03,

amendment 39–8710 (58 FR 60775,

November 18, 1993), which requires the

implementation of a corrosion

prevention and control program.

The Task Group completed its work

on Item 4 (Supplemental Inspection

Document) in May 1993 and developed

a program for the implementation of a

SID program identified in Lockheed

Document Number LG92ER0060, ‘‘L–

1011–385 Series Supplemental

Inspection Document,’’ revised January

1994, which recommends structural

inspections of older airplanes. The Task

Group has identified certain service

difficulties that warrant mandatory

inspections following mandatory

modification of these airplanes. The

Task Group considers that these service

difficulties can be controlled safely by

repetitively inspecting following

modification of these airplanes, and

that, because of the safety implications,

the inspections should be mandatory to

assure that all operators perform them.

Typically, the addressed unsafe

conditions (i.e., fatigue cracking) have

occurred infrequently on older

airplanes, and the Task Group has a

very high degree of confidence in the

ability of an inspection program to

detect the damage before it impairs

safety.

Explanation of Service Information

Lockheed Document Number

LG92ER0060, ‘‘L–1011–385 Series

Supplemental Inspection Document,’’

revised January 1994 (hereafter referred

to as ‘‘the Lockheed Document’’), is the

result of a structural re-evaluation

conducted by Lockheed. The criteria

that were used for this re-evaluation are

contained in FAA Advisory Circular

(AC) 91–56, ‘‘Supplemental Structural

Inspection Program for Large Transport

Category Airplanes,’’ and Federal

Aviation Regulation 25.571 (14 CFR

25.571), amendment 25–45. During this

structural re-evaluation, Lockheed

examined Structurally Significant

Details (SSD), which are structural parts

and components that carry significant

ground, flight, cabin pressure, or control

loads whose failure could affect the

safety of the aiplane. From these SSD’s,

Lockheed identified candidate locations

for supplemental inspections that have

been incorporated into the Lockheed

Document.

The Model L–1011–385–3 series

airplanes were excluded from this reevaluation. These newer, long-range

airplanes fly less frequently and are

neither imminently approaching nor

have they exceeded the manufacturer’s

original fatigue design life goal.

(However, as these airplanes accumulate

more hours time-in-service, and as the

critical area selection is developed and

identified, the FAA anticipates that

these airplanes will be addressed in

future rulemaking actions.)

Specifically, the Lockheed Document

describes procedures for supplemental

inspections of SSD’s for Model L–1011–

385–1 series airplanes. This Lockheed

Document identifies SSD’s in 13

fuselage, one stabilizer, and 14 wing

critical areas. The Document also

specifies that operators submit the

results of these inspections to Lockheed.

The Task Group has reviewed the

Lockheed Document, and has

recommended it to the FAA for

mandatory inspection following

mandatory modification to ensure the

successful long-term operation of

Lockheed Model L–1011–385 series

airplanes. The FAA has concurred with

the Task Group’s recommendations and

has determined that AD action is

warranted to mandate the inspections

and modifications to ensure the

continued airworthiness of the Model

L–1011–385 fleet. Fatigue cracking in

the SSD’s specified in the Lockheed

Document, if not detected and corrected

in a timely manner, could compromise

the structural integrity of the airplane.
8208 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Explanation of the Provisions of the

Proposed AD

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other products of this same

type design, the proposed AD would

require a revision to the FAA-approved

maintenance inspection program to

include a SID program of structural

inspections. The intent of these

inspections is to detect fatigue cracking

in order to ensure continued

airworthiness as these airplanes

approach the manufacturer’s original

fatigue design life goal.

Specifically, this proposal would

require that the initial inspection for

each individual SSD be performed

within one ‘‘repeat interval’’ after the

effective date of the AD or prior to the

threshold specified in the Lockheed

Document, whichever occurs later. This

proposal would provide operators with

time for planning and scheduling by

granting a deviation of 10 percent for

the interval specified in the Lockheed

Document for subsequent repetitive

inspections. This action also would

require that the results of the

inspections be reported to Lockheed.

These actions would be required to be

accomplished in accordance with the

Lockheed Document described

previously.

This proposal also would require that

any cracking detected be repaired either

in accordance with the appropriate

information referenced in the Lockheed

Document, in accordance with the

Structural Repair Manual, or in

accordance with a method approved by

the FAA.

Economic Impact Information

There are approximately 186

Lockheed Model L–1011–385–1 series

airplanes of the affected design in the

worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that

100 airplanes of U.S. registry would be

affected by this proposed AD.

Incorporation of the SID into an

operator’s maintenance program would

take approximately 550 work hours, and

the average labor rate is $60 per work

hour. Based on these figures, the total

cost impact of the proposed AD to

incorporate the SID into an operator’s

maintenance program is estimated to be

$33,000 per operator.

Initially, the FAA estimates that it

would take 293 work hours to

accomplish the 28 inspections specified

in the SSID, and that the average labor

rate is $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the total cost impact of the

proposed AD for the first year is

estimated to be $1,758,000, or $17,580

per airplane.

However, the FAA has been advised

that the terminating modification for

SSD 53–2–1, which is described in the

Lockheed Document, has been

accomplished by the entire L–1011–

385–1 fleet. Therefore, the inspections

for SSD 53–2–1, which would have

required 48 work hours per airplane to

accomplish, will not need to be

performed. In light of this, the cost

impact for the initial inspections

contained in this proposal is now only

$1,470,000, or $14,700 per airplane.

The recurring inspection cost impact

on the affected operators is estimated to

be 52 work hours per airplane at an

average labor cost of $60 per work hour.

Based on these figures, the annual

recurring cost of this AD is estimated to

not exceed $312,000 for the affected

U.S. fleet, or $3,120 per airplane.

Based on the above figures, the total

cost impact of this AD for the first year

is estimated to not exceed $47,700 per

airplane, and $2,820 per airplane for

each year thereafter.

The FAA recognizes that the

obligation to maintain aircraft in an

airworthy condition is vital, but

sometimes expensive. Because AD’s

require specific actions to address

specific unsafe conditions, they appear

to impose costs that would not

otherwise be borne by operators.

However, because of the general

obligation of operators to maintain

aircraft in an airworthy condition, this

appearance is deceptive. Attributing

those costs solely to the issuance of this

AD is unrealistic because, in the interest

of maintaining safe aircraft, prudent

operators would accomplish the

required actions even if they were not

required to do so by the AD.

A full cost-benefit analysis has not

been accomplished for this proposed

AD. As a matter of law, in order to be

airworthy, an aircraft must conform to

its type design and be in a condition for

safe operation. The type design is

approved only after the FAA makes a

determination that it complies with all

applicable airworthiness requirements.

In adopting and maintaining those

requirements, the FAA has already

made the determination that they

establish a level of safety that is costbeneficial. When the FAA, as in this

proposed AD, makes a finding of an

unsafe condition, this means that the

original cost-beneficial level of safety is

no longer being achieved and that the

proposed actions are necessary to

restore that level of safety. Because this

level of safety has already been

determined to be cost-beneficial, a full

cost-benefit analysis for this proposed

AD would be redundant and

unnecessary.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would not have substantial direct effects

on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore,

in accordance with Executive Order

12612, it is determined that this

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation (1)

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact, positive or negative,

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. App. 1354(a), 1421

and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR

11.89.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Lockheed: Docket 93–NM–219–AD.

Applicability: Model L–1011–385–1, –385–

1–14, and –385–1–15 series airplanes,

certificated in any category.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent fatigue cracking that could

compromise the structural integrity of these

airplanes, accomplish the following:

(a) Within 6 months after the effective date

of this AD, incorporate a revision into the

FAA-approved maintenance inspection

program which provides for inspection(s) of
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 8209

the structurally significant details (SSD)

defined in Lockheed Document Number

LG92ER0060, ‘‘L–1011–385 Series

Supplemental Inspection Document,’’ revised

January 1994.

(1) The initial inspection for each SSD

must be performed within one repeat interval

after the effective date of this AD, or prior to

the threshold specified in the Lockheed

Document for that SSD, whichever occurs

later.

(2) A 10 percent deviation from the

repetitive interval specified in the Lockheed

Document for that SSD is acceptable to allow

for planning and scheduling time.

(3) If the Lockheed Document specifies that

inspection of any SSD be performed at every

‘‘C’’ check, those inspections must be

performed at intervals not to exceed 5,000

hours time-in-service or 2,500 flight cycles,

whichever occurs earlier.

(4) If the Lockheed Document specifies

either the initial inspection or the repetitive

inspection intervals for any SSD in terms of

flight hours or flight cycles, the inspection

shall be performed prior to the earlier of the

terms (whichever occurs first on the airplane:

either accumulated number of flight hours, or

accumulated number of flight cycles).

(5) The non-destructive inspection

techniques referenced in Appendix VI of the

Lockheed Document (Revision A of Lockheed

Drawing 1647194) provide acceptable

methods for accomplishing the inspections

required by this AD.

(b) If any cracking is found in any SSD,

prior to further flight, repair in accordance

with either paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3)

of this AD:

(1) In accordance with the applicable

service bulletin referenced in Lockheed

Document Number LG92ER0060, ‘‘L–1011–

385 Series Supplemental Inspection

Document,’’ revised January 1994; or

(2) In accordance with the Structural

Repair Manual; or

(3) In accordance with a method approved

by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification

Office (ACO), FAA, Small Airplane

Directorate.

(c) Within 30 days after returning the

airplane to service, subsequent to

accomplishment of the inspection(s)

specified in Lockheed Document Number

LG92ER0060, ‘‘L–1011–385 Series

Supplemental Inspection Document,’’ revised

January 1994, submit a report of the results

(positive or negative) of the inspection(s) to

Lockheed in accordance with Section V.,

Data Reporting System (DRS), of the

Lockheed Document. Information collection

requirements contained in this regulation

have been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been

assigned OMB Control Number 2120–0056.

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Atlanta

ACO. Operators shall submit their requests

through an appropriate FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Atlanta ACO.

Note: Information concerning the existence

of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta ACO.

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February

7, 1995.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–3515 Filed 2–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration

30 CFR Parts 6, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,

26, 27, 29, 33, and 35

RIN 1219–AA87

Testing and Evaluation by Nationally

Recognized Testing Laboratories and

Use of Equivalent Testing and

Evaluation Requirements

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health

Administration (MSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice to extend period for

public comment.

SUMMARY: Due to requests from the

public, the Mine Safety and Health

Administration (MSHA) is extending

the period for public comment regarding

its proposed rule for testing and

evaluation by nationally recognized

testing laboratories and the use of

equivalent testing and evaluation

requirements.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before February 21, 1995.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

sent to Mine Safety and Health

Administration, Office of Standards,

Regulations, and Variances, Room 631,

4015 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington,

Virginia 22203.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

November 30, 1994, MSHA published a

proposed rule (59 FR 61376) to establish

new procedures and requirements for

testing and evaluation of certain

products MSHA approves for use in

underground mines. The comment

period was scheduled to end on

February 13, 1995.

In response to requests from the

public, MSHA is extending the time for

commenting on this proposed rule to

February 21, 1995. All interested

members of the mining community are

encouraged to submit comments prior to

that date.

Dated: February 8, 1995.

J. Davitt McAteer,

Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and

Health.

[FR Doc. 95–3596 Filed 2–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–43–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD05–94–093]

RIN 2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Mullica River, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: At the request of Burlington

County, New Jersey, the Coast Guard is

considering a change to the regulations

governing operation of the Lower Bank

bridge over the Mullica River at mile

15.0 between Atlantic and Burlington

Counties, New Jersey. This change will

extend the existing winter seasonal

restrictions into April and require four

hours advance notice of all bridge

openings during this period. This

change is being proposed because there

have been few requests for bridge

openings during the winter months. The

proposed change, if adopted, will

relieve the bridge owner of the

responsibility of having a bridgetender

constantly on duty during a time of year

when there is no demonstrated need for

one, and will still provide for the

reasonable needs of navigation

throughout the year.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 15, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Commander (ob), Fifth Coast Guard

District, c/o Commander (obr), First

Coast Guard District, Bldg. 135A,

Governors Island, New York 10004–

5073. The comments will become part

of this docket and will be available for

inspection and copying by appointment

at Bldg. 135A, Governors Island, New

York 10004–5073. Normal office hours

are between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.,

Mondays through Fridays, except

Federal holidays. Comments may also

be hand-delivered to this address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gary Kassof, Bridge Administrator—NY,

Fifth Coast Guard District, (212) 668–

7170.