10812 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Discussion

Textron Lycoming conducted new life

analyses for various components in

ALF502L series turbofan engines.

Textron Lycoming has determined that

stage 1 and stage 3–7 compressor disks,

and stage 2 turbine disks require

reduced retirement life limits. No

failures have occurred in service on the

ALF502L series engines, but inspections

of these components from ALF502R

series engines have found cracks prior

to attaining current service retirement

lives. This condition, if not corrected,

could result in disk failure, which could

result in an inflight engine shutdown

and extensive engine damage.

On October 28, 1994, AlliedSignal

Inc. purchased the turbine engine

product line of Textron Lycoming, but

as of this date the anticipated name

change on the type certificate for the

ALF502L series engines has not

occurred. However, the service bulletins

(SB) issued for these engines now bear

the title, ‘‘AlliedSignal Engines.’’ The

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

has reviewed and approved the

technical contents of AlliedSignal

Engines SB No. ALF 502 72–0004,

Revision 12, dated November 30, 1994,

that describes reduced retirement lives

for affected components; and

AlliedSignal Engines SB No. ALF502L

72–281, dated November 30, 1994, that

describes a drawdown schedule for

disks already beyond the reduced

retirement life limits.

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

establish reduced retirement life limits

for stage 1 and stage 3–7 compressors

disks, and stage 2 turbine disks, and

provide a drawdown schedule for disks

already beyond the reduced retirement

life limits. The actions would be

required to be accomplished in

accordance with the service bulletins

described previously.

There are approximately 184 engines

of the affected design in the worldwide

fleet. The FAA estimates that 50 engines

installed on aircraft of U.S. registry

would be affected by this proposed AD,

and that the prorated reduced service

life cost based on the cost of a new disk

would be approximately $16,400 per

engine. Based on these figures, the total

cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $820,000.

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:

Textron Lycoming: Docket No. 94–ANE–56.

Applicability: Textron Lycoming ALF502L,

L–2, L–2A, L–2C, and L–3 turbofan engines

installed on but not limited to Canadair

Challenger CL600 series aircraft.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent disk failure, which could result

in an inflight engine shutdown and extensive

engine damage, accomplish the following:

(a) Remove from service stage 1 and stage

3–7 compressor disks, and stage 2 turbine

disks, in accordance with the drawdown

schedule and procedures described in

AlliedSignal Engines Service Bulletin (SB)

No. ALF502L 72–281, dated November 30,

1994.

(b) This AD establishes new, reduced

retirement life limits for stage 1 and stage 3–

7 compressor disks, and stage 2 turbine disks,

in accordance with AlliedSignal Engines SB

No. ALF 502 72–0004, Revision 12, dated

November 30, 1994.

(c) 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, Engine

Certification Office. The request should be

forwarded through an appropriate FAA

Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may

add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Engine Certification Office.

Note: Information concerning the existence

of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this airworthiness directive,

if any, may be obtained from the Engine

Certification Office.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

February 16, 1995.

James C. Jones,

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–4852 Filed 2–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

15 CFR Part 944

[Docket No. 950222055–5055–01]

RIN 0648–AH92

Restricting or Prohibiting Attracting

Sharks by Chum or Other Means in the

Monterey Bay National Marine

Sanctuary

AGENCY: Sanctuaries and Reserves

Division (SRD), Office of Ocean and

Coastal Resource management (OCRM),

National Ocean Service (NOS), National

Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), Department of

Commerce (DOC).

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking; request for comments.

SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration’s

Sanctuaries and Reserves Division

(SRD) is considering amending the

regulations for the Monterey Bay

National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS or

Sanctuary) to restrict or prohibit the

attracting of sharks by the use of chum

or other means in the MBNMS. This

advance notice of proposed rulemaking

(ANPR) discusses the reasons SRD is

considering restricting or prohibiting

this activity in the MBNMS. Any

restrictions or prohibitions SRD places

on attracting sharks by the use of chum

or other means would be to ensure that

Sanctuary resources or qualities would

not be adversely impacted and/or to

avoid conflict among various users of

the Sanctuary. SRD is issuing this ANPR
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules 10813

specifically to inform the public of the

issue and course of action under

consideration by SRD, and to invite

submission of written information,

advice, recommendations and other

comments.

DATES: Comments must be received by

March 30, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

Elizabeth Moore, Sanctuaries and

Reserves Division, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, 1305 East

West Highway, SSMC4, 12th Floor,

Silver Spring, Maryland, 20910.

Comments will be available for public

inspection at the same address and at

the Monterey Bay National Marine

Sanctuary office at 299 Foam Street,

Suite D, Monterey, California, 93940.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Moore at (301) 713–3141.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

recognition of the national significance

of the unique marine environment

centered around Monterey Bay,

California, the MBNMS was designated

on September 18, 1992. SRD issued final

regulations, effective January, 1993, to

implement the Sanctuary designation

(15 CFR Part 944). The MBNMS

regulations at 15 CFR 944.5(a) prohibit

a relatively narrow range of activities to

protect Sanctuary resources and

qualities.

In January of 1994, SRD became aware

that chum was being used to attract

white sharks for viewing by SCUBA

divers while in underwater cages. This

activity occurred in the nearshore area

off of An ̃ o Nuevo in the MBNMS, during

the time of year white sharks come to

feed. While California state law

generally makes it unlawful to ‘‘take’’

(e.g., catch, capture, or kill) white sharks

in state waters, it does not appear to

address attracting sharks for other

purposes, nor does it prohibit the taking

of sharks in those portions of the

MBNMS outside of state waters. SRD

has also received expressions of concern

over this activity and inquiries as to

whether attracting sharks for viewing

and other purposes is allowed in the

MBNMS.

There is currently no MBNMS

regulation specifically addressing the

attracting of sharks in the MBNMS.

There is a general regulatory prohibition

against discharging or depositing any

material or other matter in the

Sanctuary. 15 CFR 944.5(a)(2). The

discharge and deposit prohibition

contains an exemption for, inter alia,

the discharge or deposit of ‘‘fish, fish

parts, chumming materials or bait used

in or resulting from traditional fishing

operations in the Sanctuary’’. While

fishing activities in the Sanctuary are

subject to various Federal and state

regulations, traditional fishing activities

are not regulated as part of the

Sanctuary regulatory regime. Sanctuary

regulations that could indirectly

regulate traditional fishing operations

were specifically crafted to avoid doing

so. Thus, while fishing vessels are

subject to the general regulatory

prohibition against discharging or

depositing any material or other matter

in the Sanctuary, the exemption for the

discharge or deposit of ‘‘fish, fish parts,

chumming materials or bait used in or

resulting from traditional fishing

operations in the Sanctuary’’ was

designed to prevent the prohibition

from indirectly regulating the conduct

of traditional fishing operations.

However, an argument has been raised

that the phrase in the regulatory

exemption ‘‘used in or resulting from’’

could be interpreted to allow the

discharge or deposit of ‘‘fish, fish parts,

chumming materials or bait’’ at any time

or in conjunction with any activity, as

long as the discharge or deposit is of the

same material used by or generated

during traditional fishing operations in

the Sanctuary. As one option, SRD

could amend the exemption for the

discharge of ‘‘fish, fish parts, chumming

materials or bait used in or resulting

from traditional fishing operations in

the Sanctuary’’ to clarify that it applies

only to such discharges if they are

incidental to and during the conduct of

traditional fishing operations.

SRD, with input from its MBNMS

Advisory Council, and a number of

interested parties, has identified a

number of concerns regarding the issue

of attracting sharks within the MBNMS:

(1) Attracting sharks by chum or other

means may cause behavioral changes in

the attracted species (e.g., feeding,

migration); (2) attracting sharks by chum

or other means may cause behavioral

changes in the attracted species

resulting in increased predation on prey

or non-prey marine species; and (3)

attracting sharks by chum or other

means may increase the risk of attack to

other Sanctuary users, or otherwise

create user conflict in the area of the

activity. Consequently, along with

considering amending the regulatory

exemption to the discharge and deposit

prohibition as discussed above, SRD is

considering specifically restricting or

prohibiting attracting sharks in the

Sanctuary.

The Designation Document for the

MBNMS, the constitution for the

Sanctuary, contains a list of activities

subject to regulation, including

prohibition, to the extent necessary and

reasonable to ensure the protection and

management of the conservation,

ecological, recreational, research,

educational, historical and esthetic

resources and qualities of the area.

Included as an activity subject to

regulation is the following:

d. Taking, removing, moving, catching,

collecting, harvesting, feeding, injuring,

destroying or causing the loss of, or

attempting to take, remove, move, catch,

collect, harvest, feed, injure, destroy or cause

the loss of a marine mammal, sea turtle,

seabird, historical resource or other

Sanctuary resource.

See 57 FR 43310, 43316 (September

18, 1992) (emphasis added). Therefore,

amending the Sanctuary regulations to

restrict or prohibit the taking, removing,

moving, catching, collecting, harvesting,

feeding, injuring, destroying or causing

the loss of sharks within the MBNMS,

or attempt thereto, is authorized by the

Designation Document. ‘‘Take or taking’’

is defined broadly in the Sanctuary

regulations (15 CFR 944.3), and includes

harassment of the species it currently

addresses (marine mammals, seabirds

and sea turtles).

To amend the regulations, SRD must

follow the appropriate procedures of

notice and comment rulemaking under

the Administrative Procedure Act.

Further, SRD is required by the National

Marine Sanctuaries Act at 16 U.S.C.

1434(a)(5) to consult with the

appropriate Regional Fishery

Management Council before it issues

any Sanctuary regulations ‘‘for fishing’’.

SRD has sent a letter to the Pacific

Fishery Management Council for its

input regarding the issues identified in

this ANPR.

This ANPR is an optional preliminary

step to notice and comment rulemaking.

SRD is issuing this ANPR specifically to

inform the public of the issue and that

it is considering restricting or

prohibiting attracting sharks within the

MBNMS, and to invite submission of

written information, advice,

recommendations and other comments.

In particular, SRD requests comments

on:

(1) What methods are used to attract

sharks in the MBNMS;

(2) What methods are used to attract

sharks in other areas;

(3) Whether attracting sharks by chum

or other means is necessary if they are

known to be naturally present in a given

area;

(4) Whether attracting sharks by chum

or other means causes short- or longterm behavioral changes in the attracted

species or associated species that are

disruptive to their normal behavior (e.g.,

feeding, migration, predation);

(5) Whether attracting sharks by chum

or other means has adverse impacts on

other MBNMS resources;
10814 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules

(6) Whether attracting sharks by chum

or other means in nearshore areas

creates a risk to other users of those

areas (e.g., surfers, swimmers, SCUBA

divers, snorklers, fishermen, boaters);

(7) Whether other Sanctuary users

(e.g., surfers, swimmers, SCUBA divers,

snorklers, fishermen, boaters) actively

avoid areas where attracting sharks

occurs;

(8) Whether there are other impacts,

risks or concerns resulting from

attracting sharks by chum or other

means in the MBNMS;

(9) Whether a restriction or

prohibition against attracting sharks by

chum or other means should be

Sanctuary-wide or only in the nearshore

areas of the MBNMS (and if the latter,

what should constitute nearshore); and

(10) Any other information that may

be pertinent to this issue.

During the comment period of this

ANPR, SRD will hold a public meeting

allowing the public to provide written

or oral comments. Notice of the date,

time and location of the meeting will

appear in the Federal Register.

Executive Order 12866

For purposes of Executive Order

12866, this advance notice of proposed

rulemaking is determined to be not

significant.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 944

Administrative practice and

procedure, Coastal zone, Education,

Environmental protection, Marine

resources, Natural resources, Penalties,

Recreation and recreation areas,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Research.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.

Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog

Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program

Dated: February 15, 1995.

Frank W. Maloney,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Ocean

Services and Coastal Zone Management.

[FR Doc. 95–4854 Filed 2–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–08–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

21 CFR Part 1310

[DEA No. 128P]

RIN 1117–AA26

Records, Reports, and Exports of

Listed Chemicals

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), Justice.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This rule proposes to include

methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK) as a List

II Chemical under the Controlled

Substances Act (CSA) for the purpose of

imposing controls on exports which

may be destined for cocaine producing

regions. This proposed action by the

DEA Deputy Administrator is based on

substantial evidence that MIBK is

increasingly being used as a solvent in

the production of cocaine hydrochloride

during the conversion of cocaine base to

cocaine hydrochloride. The recent steps

by the Government of Colombia (GOC)

to control MIBK further support this

proposed action.

This proposed action will only effect

export transactions; international

transactions in which a U.S. broker or

trader participates; and transshipments

through the U.S., which are greater than

500 gallons or 1523 kilograms of MIBK

destined for countries in the Western

Hemisphere (with the exception of

transactions destined for Canada).

DATES: Written comments and

objections must be received on or before

March 30, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments and objections

should be submitted in quintuplicate to

the Deputy Assistant Administrator,

Office of Diversion Control, Drug

Enforcement Administration,

Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA

Federal Register Representative/CCR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Howard McClain Jr., Chief, Drug and

Chemical Evaluation Section, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration, Washington, DC 20537

at (202) 307–7183.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Controlled Substances Act (CSA),

specifically 21 U.S.C. section 802,

provides the Attorney General with the

authority to specify by regulation,

additional precursor and essential

chemicals as ‘‘listed chemicals’’ if they

are used in the illicit manufacture of

controlled substances. Section 802(39)

also provides the Attorney General with

authority to establish a threshold

amount for ‘‘listed chemicals’’ if the

Attorney General so elects. This

authority has been delegated to the

Administrator of DEA by 28 CFR 0.100

and redelegated to the Deputy

Administrator under 28 CFR 0.104

(subpart R) appendix sec. 12.

While methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) has

become the solvent of choice in the

processing of cocaine base to cocaine

hydrochloride, recent regulatory and

enforcement efforts in Latin America

have resulted in a reduced availability

of MEK. Information available to DEA

indicates that in response to this

shortfall of MEK, cocaine laboratory

operators have moved to the utilization

of MIBK for the processing of cocaine

base to cocaine hydrochloride. Due to

information regarding the use of MIBK

for cocaine processing, the dramatic

increase in MIBK importation, and the

importation of MIBK by some firms that

the Government of Colombia (GOC)

considers suspect, the GOC has recently

taken steps to control the sale and

distribution of MIBK.

In making the determination

regarding the possible control of MIBK

under the CSA, the DEA considered the

following:

(1) The chemistry of the compound

(2) The legitimate use and commerce of

the compound

(3) Evidence of illicit use

An examination of the chemistry of

MIBK shows that it appears to be ideally

suited for the conversion of cocaine base

to cocaine hydrochloride. MIBK

possesses the correct solubility

characteristics, is partially miscible with

water and is relatively volatile.

The U.S. is a major producer of MIBK

and exports this chemical to Latin

America. The major commercial

application for MIBK is as a solvent for

vinyl, epoxy and acrylic resins, for

natural resins, for nitrocellulose and for

dyes in the printing industry. It is also

a versatile extracting agent, e.g. for the

production of antibiotics, or the removal

of paraffins from mineral oil for the

production of lubricating oils. MIBK’s

uses are similar to those of MEK. There

is a legitimate need for these chemicals

in Colombia.

Although Colombian imports of MEK

have decreased, U.S. firms believe that

the legitimate need for MEK is being

met. In contrast, however, importations

into Colombia of MIBK have increased

dramatically in 1994 following

regulatory and enforcement actions

taken by the GOC and other countries

against MEK. No significant increase in

the legitimate need for MIBK has been

identified. The amount of MIBK

imported into Colombia in the second

quarter of 1994 exceeded the total

quantity imported over the preceding 15

months. Some of these importations

were to firms which the GOC considers

suspect.

The use of MIBK in cocaine

hydrochloride production has recently

been scientifically confirmed via the

identification of MIBK in seized cocaine

hydrochloride. While MEK is the most

frequently seen solvent appearing in

cocaine hydrochloride, MIBK has also

been identified in seized material.

Recent samples show an increased

incidence of MIBK in seized cocaine

hydrochloride. During the fourth quarter