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.
8210 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages

interested persons to participate in this

rulemaking by submitting written views,

comments, data, or arguments. Persons

submitting comments should include

their names and addresses, identify this

rulemaking (CGD05–94–093) and the

specific section of this proposal to

which each comment applies, and give

reasons for each comment. The Coast

Guard requests that all comments and

attachments be submitted in an

unbound format suitable for copying

and electronic filing. If not practical, a

second copy of any bound material is

requested. Persons desiring

acknowledgement that their comments

have been received should enclose a

stamped, self-addressed postcard or

envelope.

The Coast Guard will consider all

comments received during the comment

period. It may change this proposal in

view of the comments.

The Coast Guard plans no public

hearing. Persons may request a public

hearing by writing to the Commander

(ob) at the address under ADDRESSES.

The request should include reasons why

a hearing would be beneficial. If it

determines that the opportunity for oral

presentations will aid this rulemaking,

the Coast Guard will hold a public

hearing at a time and place to be

announced by a later notice in the

Federal Register.

Drafting Information

The drafters of this notice are Mr. J.

Arca, Fifth Coast Guard District, Bridge

Branch-NY, Project Officer, and LCDR

C.A. Abel, Fifth Coast Guard District

Legal Office, Project Attorney.

Background and Purpose

The Lower Bank highway bascule

bridge over the Mullica River in Lower

Bank, New Jersey was replaced in 1993.

It has a vertical clearance of 13 feet

above mean high water (MHW) in the

closed position, which is 4 feet higher

than the previous bridge in the closed

position. During the period from

December 1993 through April 1994, a

period of 151 days, requests for bridge

openings occurred on only 34 days. The

current operating regulations, which

were implemented in January 1988,

require the Lower Bank bridge to open

on signal, except that it is required to

open with four hours advance notice

from April 1 through November 30 from

11 p.m. to 7 a.m., and from December

1 through March 31, from 4:30 p.m. to

8 a.m. This proposed change to the

regulations would extend the winter

seasonal restrictions into April and

increase the four hours advance notice

requirement to apply to all requests for

bridge openings during the winter

months. This change, if adopted, will

provide the bridge owner relief from the

burden of constantly having a person

available to open the bridge, when there

is no sufficient justification to do so.

Burlington County has requested a

change to the present operating

regulations in 33 CFR 117.731a which

would allow the Lower Bank Bridge to

operate as follows: The draw of the

Lower Bank Bridge would need not

open unless at least four hours advance

notice is given during the following

periods, May 1 through November 30,

from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. and from

December 1 to April 30 at all times. At

all other times, the bridge would open

on signal. This change to the regulations

is being proposed due to infrequent

requests for openings. The proposed

change to the regulation will relieve the

bridge owner of the burden of having

personnel at the bridge at night and

during the winter months. The

bridgetenders will be on call to open the

draw when the four hour advance notice

is given to the bridge owner by calling

the number that will be posted at the

bridge; therefore, the reasonable needs

of navigation will be met.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposal is not a significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866, and does not

require as assessment of potential costs

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that

order. It has been exempted from review

by the Office of Management and

Budget under that order. It is not

significant under the regulatory policies

and procedures of the Department of

Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;

February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard

expects the economic impact of this

proposal to be so minimal that a full

Regulatory Evaluation, under paragraph

10e of the regulatory policies and

procedures of DOT, is unnecessary. This

conclusion is based on the fact that the

regulation will not prevent mariners

from transiting the bridge. Rather, it will

only require mariners to plan their

transits and provide advance notice.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

must consider whether this proposal, if

adopted, will have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. ‘‘Small

entities’’ include independently owned

and operated small businesses that are

not dominant in their field and that

otherwise qualify as ‘‘small business

concerns’’ under section 3 of the Small

Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632). Because it

expects the impact of this proposal to be

minimal, the Coast Guard certifies

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposal,

if adopted, will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Collection of Information

This proposal contains no collection

of information requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

proposal in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 12612, and has

determined that this proposed

regulation does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this proposal

and concluded that, under section

2.B.2.E.(32)(e) of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1B, this proposal is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation. A

Categorical Exclusion Determination

statement and checklist has been

prepared and placed in the rulemaking

docket.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

Regulations

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Coast Guard proposes to amend Part 117

of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations,

as follows:

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE

OPERATION REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 117

continues to read ad follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33

CFR 1.05–1(g).

2. In section 117.731a paragraph (a) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 117.731a Mullica River.

* * * * *

(a) The draw of the Lower Bank

bridge, mile 15.0, need not open unless

at least four fours notice is given during

the following periods:

(1) From May 1 though November 30,

from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m.

(2) From December 1 through April

30, at all times.

* * * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 1995 / Proposed Rules 8211

Dated: January 20, 1995.

M.K. Cain,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Fifth

Coast Guard District, Acting.

[FR Doc. 95–3545 Filed 2–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

POSTAL RATE COMMISSION

39 CFR Part 3001

[Docket No. RM95–3]

Appeals of Postal Service

Determinations to Close or

Consolidate Post Offices

AGENCY: Postal Rate Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Commission proposes to

amend its rules of practice governing

the filing of postal patrons’ appeals of

determinations by the United States

Postal Service to close or consolidate

the post office which serves them. The

Commission’s current rule requires that

petitions to initiate such appeals be

received by the Commission within 30

days of the date on which the Postal

Service made its determination publicly

available. The proposed rule would

allow affected postal patrons to initiate

a timely appeal by filing a petition

which either is received by the

Commission within 30 days of the date

on which the Postal Service made its

determination publicly available, or

bears a postmark or other indicia that it

was mailed no later than 30 days after

that date.

DATES: Comments responding to this

notice of proposed rulemaking must be

submitted no later than March 30, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments and

correspondence should be sent to

Margaret P. Crenshaw, Secretary of the

Commission, 1333 H Street, N.W., Suite

300, Washington, D.C. 20268–0001

(telephone: 202/789–6840).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen L. Sharfman, Legal Advisor,

Postal Rate Commission, 1333 H Street,

N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C.

20268–0001 (telephone: 202/789–6820).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Postal

Reorganization Act Amendments of

1976, Pub. L. No. 94–421, 90 Stat. 1303,

provide postal patrons an opportunity to

appeal determinations by the United

States Postal Service to close or

consolidate the post office which serves

them. In pertinent part, the statute

provides: ‘‘A determination of the Postal

Service to close or consolidate any post

office may be appealed by any person

served by such office to the Postal Rate

Commission within 30 days after such

determination is made available to such

person * * *.’’ 39 U.S.C. 404(b)(5).

In adopting rules to implement the

provisions of Pub. L. 94–421, the Postal

Rate Commission incorporated the 30-

day provision in section 404(b)(5) as

follows:

Petition for review. Review of a

determination of the Postal Service to close

or consolidate a post office shall be obtained

by filing a petition for review with the

Secretary of this Commission. Such petition

must be received by the Commission within

30 days after the Service has made available

to persons served by that post office the

written determination to close or consolidate

required by 39 U.S.C. 404(b)(3) through (4).

39 CFR 3001.111(a). Thus, under the

Commission’s current rule, the

timeliness of affected postal patrons’

appeals depends upon the

Commission’s actual receipt of their

petition within the 30-day statutory

period.

The Commission is concerned that the

current rule may operate to the

detriment of postal patrons served by

post offices that are geographically

remote from the Commission’s offices in

Washington, D.C. Because of

uncertainties associated with postal

processing, transportation, and delivery,

a petition’s transit time from mailing by

the appellants to receipt at the

Commission’s offices cannot be known

in advance, but may constitute a

significant portion of the 30-day interval

established in the current rule. An

internal review of the Commission’s

records of section 404(b) appeals filed in

Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994 discloses

that the interval between the mailing of

a petition and its receipt by the

Commission has frequently approached,

and has sometimes exceeded, one week.

In order to assure that members of the

public affected by Postal Service

determinations to close or consolidate

post offices are afforded the full 30 days

to pursue an appeal provided by 39

U.S.C. 404(b)(5), the Commission

proposes to amend its current rule to

incorporate two alternative measures of

the timeliness of petitions. Under the

proposed revision of 39 CFR

3001.111(a), a petition would be

deemed timely if: (1) The Commission

actually received it no later than 30 days

following publication of the Postal

Service’s determination, or (2) the

petition bears a postmark or other

indicia demonstrating that it was mailed

no later than 30 days after publication

by the Postal Service.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 3001

Administrative practices and

procedure, Postal Service.

Accordingly, 39 CFR part 3001 is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 3001—RULES OF PRACTICE

AND PROCEDURE

1. The authority citation for 39 CFR

Part 3001 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 39 U.S.C. 404(b), 3603, 3622–

3624, 3661, 3662, 84 Stat. 759–762, 764, 90

Stat. 1303; (5 U.S.C. 553), 80 Stat. 383.

2. Section 3001.111(a) would be

revised to read as follows:

§ 3001.111 Initiation of review

proceedings.

(a) Petition for review. (1) Review of

a determination of the Postal Service to

close or consolidate a post office shall

be obtained by filing a petition for

review with the Secretary of this

Commission. Such petition must either:

(i) Be received by the Commission

within 30 days after the Service has

made available to persons served by that

post office the written determination to

close or consolidate required by 39

U.S.C. 404(b) (3) through (4), or

(ii) Bear a postmark or other indicia

demonstrating that the petition was

mailed no later than the 30th day

following the date on which the Postal

Service made its written determination

available.

(2) The petition shall specify the

parties seeking review, all of whom

must be persons served by the post

office proposed to be closed or

consolidated and shall identify the

Postal Service as respondent. The

Commission encourages parties seeking

review to attach a copy of the Postal

Service written determination, as the

appeal process is thereby expedited. If

two or more persons are entitled to

petition for review of the same

determination and their interests are

such as to make joinder practicable,

they may file a joint petition for review

and may thereafter proceed as a single

petitioner.

* * * * *

Issued by the Commission on February 7,

1995.

Margaret P. Crenshaw,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–3457 Filed 2–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P