Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 15115

of a pesticide, under the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA) as amended, which

contains any of the ingredients listed

herein, may request within 30 days after

publication of this document in the

Federal Register that this rulemaking

proposal be referred to an Advisory

Committee in accordance with section

408(e) of the FFDCA.

Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments on the

proposed regulation. Comments must

bear a notation indicating the document

control number, [FAP 4H5683/P600].

All written comments filed in response

to this petition will be available in the

Public Response and Program Resources

Branch, at the address given above from

8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except legal holidays.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency must

determine whether the regulatory action

is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

all the requirements of the Executive

Order (i.e., Regulatory Impact Analysis,

review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the

order defines ‘‘significant’’ as those

actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having

an annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more, or adversely and

materially affecting a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local or tribal

governments or communities (also

known as ‘‘economically significant’’);

(2) creating serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfering with an action

taken or planned by another agency; (3)

materially altering the budgetary

impacts of entitlement, grants, user fees,

or loan programs; or (4) raising novel

legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles set forth in this Executive

Order.

Pursuant to the terms of this

Executive Order, EPA has determined

that this rule is not ‘‘significant’’ and is

therefore not subject to OMB review.

Pursuant to the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–

354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601–612),

the Administrator has determined that

regulations establishing new tolerances

or raising tolerance levels or

establishing exemptions from tolerance

requirements do not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. A certification

statement to this effect was published in

the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46

FR 24950).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 180,

185, 186

Administrative practice and

procedure, Agricultural commodities,

Food additives, Feed additives,

Pesticides and pests, Processed foods,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: March 9, 1995.

Daniel M. Barolo,

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR

parts 180, 185, and 186 be amended as

follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED]

1. In part 180:

a. The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.

b. In § 180.396, the existing text is

designated as paragraph (a), and the

table therein is amended by removing

the entry for sugarcane, and new

paragraph (b) is added, to read as

follows:

§ 180.396 Hexazinone; tolerances for

residues.

(a) * * *

(b) A tolerance with regional

registration, as defined in § 180.1(n) and

which excludes use of hexazinone on

sugarcane in Florida, is established for

combined residues of the herbicide

hexazinone (3-cyclohexyl-6-

(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-

triazine-2,4(1H,3H)-dione) and its

metabolites (calculated as hexazinone)

in or on the following raw agricultural

commodity:

Commodity Parts per

million

Sugarcane ................................. 0.2

PART 185—[AMENDED]

2. In part 185:

a. The authority citation for part 185

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 348.

b. By adding new § 185.3575, to read

as follows:

§ 185.3575 Hexazinone; tolerances for

residues.

A food additive tolerance with

regional registration, as defined in

§ 180.1(n) and which excludes use of

hexazinone on sugarcane in Florida, is

established for combined residues of the

herbicide hexazinone (3-cyclohexyl-6-

(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-

triazine-2,4(1H,3H)-dione) and its

metabolites (calculated as hexazinone)

in or on the following commodity:

Commodity Parts per

million

Sugarcane, molasses ............... 0.5

PART 186—[AMENDED]

3. In part 186:

a. The authority citation for part 186

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 348.

b. By adding new § 186.3575, to read

as follows:

§ 186.3575 Hexazinone; tolerances for

residues.

A feed additive tolerance with

regional registration, as defined in

§ 180.1(n) and which excludes use of

hexazinone on sugarcane in Florida, is

established for combined residues of the

herbicide hexazinone (3-cyclohexyl-6-

(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-

triazine-2,4(1H,3H)-dione and its

metabolites (calculated hexazinone) in

or on the following feed commodity:

Commodity Parts per

million

Sugarcane, molasses ............... 0.5

[FR Doc. 95–6931 Filed 3–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 4 and 5

[CGD 95–023]

Marine Safety Investigation Process

Review

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard conducts

marine casualty investigations to

determine the causes of casualties. The

findings of an investigation may lead to

proceedings for the suspension or

revocation of a merchant mariner’s

license, certificate of registry, or

document, the assessment of a civil

penalty, or to criminal prosecution. The

Coast Guard is reviewing its marine

safety investigation process to identify

possible improvements, and is seeking

input from the public.
15116 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 1, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Mr. W.D. Rabe, Commandant (G–MMI),

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100

Second Street SW., Washington, DC

20593–0001, or may be made by

telephone at (202) 267–1430, or by fax

at (202) 267–1416.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. W.D. Rabe, Marine Investigation

Division, Office of Marine Safety,

Security and Environmental Protection,

telephone, (202) 267–1430.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages

interested persons to participate in this

process by submitting written data,

views, or arguments, or verbal

comments. Persons submitting

comments should include their names

and addresses, identify this notice (CGD

95–023) and the specific question to

which each comment applies, and give

the reason for each comment. Please

submit two copies of all written

comments and attachments in an

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by

11 inches, suitable for copying and

electronic filing.

Drafting Information

The principal persons involved in

drafting the document are Mr. W.D.

Rabe, Project Manager, and Commander

P.A. Popko, Assistant Division Chief,

Merchant Vessel Inspection and

Documentation Division, Office of

Marine Safety, Security and

Environmental Protection.

Background and Purpose

The marine casualty investigation

process is the main feedback loop for

Coast Guard prevention programs. This

measurement function has never been

more important as limited resources

must be focused on those activities

which will be most effective in

minimizing the risks to personnel and

the environment.

Under the authority of 46 U.S.C.

Chapter 63, the Coast Guard conducts

marine casualty investigations. Section

6301 of Title 46, U.S. Code, requires the

Secretary to issue regulations for the

investigation of marine casualties. This

authority has been delegated to the

Coast Guard which has promulgated

regulations and procedures for the

reporting and investigation of marine

casualties. These regulations appear in

46 CFR parts 4 and 5. Under current law

and regulations, the marine industry has

a duty to report marine casualties, as

defined in law and regulations, to the

Coast Guard. There is more confusion

regarding which casualties must be

reported and a general concern that

there is little benefit in reporting and

investigation many of the ‘‘minor’’

casualties.

The Chief, Office of Marine Safety,

Security, and Environmental Protection

has established a Quality Action Team

(QAT) to review the investigation

process. The QAT will examine the

process and recommend improvements.

It will consider public comment during

its review. The review will address

collection and analysis of casualty data,

casualty reporting requirements,

casualty investigation procedures,

investigator training and qualification

requirements, and the use of

investigations for Suspension and

Revocation proceedings, civil penalty

assessments, and potential criminal

prosecutions.

The QAT specifically solicits

responses to the following questions:

1. What changes would you

recommend to the reporting

requirements for marine casualties in 46

CFR part 4?

2. How could the reporting criteria be

improved to help eliminate confusion

concerning which incidents are

reportable to the Coast Guard?

3. How could the Coast Guard satisfy

its need for data collection on marine

casualties while reducing some of the

burden on industry to report casualties?

4. Would electronic or batch reporting

of minor casualties be beneficial?

5. What would be the pros and cons

of limiting Coast Guard activity on

certain casualties to data collection

while reserving in depth investigation to

those casualties from which important

lessons can be learned?

6. What would be the pros and cons

of the Coast Guard not investigating

those cases which the National

Transportation Safety Board is

investigating to reduce duplication of

effort?

The QAT will consult with the marine

industry to obtain insight on where

investigation processes can be improved

to benefit both the Coast Guard and

industry. Small study groups may be

formed, if appropriate, and public

meetings may be held to get input from

a broad interest base. If the Coast Guard

decides to hold public meetings, the

dates, times, and locations will be

announced by a later notice in the

Federal Register.

Dated: March 15, 1995.

Joseph J. Angelo,

Acting Chief, Office of Marine Safety Security

and Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 95–6950 Filed 3–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2 and 15

[ET Docket No. 95–19; FCC 95–46]

Streamlining the Equipment

Authorization Procedures for Digital

Devices

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposal would

streamline the equipment authorization

requirements for personal computers

and personal computer peripherals by

relaxing the equipment authorization

from certification to a new type of

authorization based on a manufacturer’s

or supplier’s declaration of compliance.

It would also permit authorization of

individual components of personal

computers and would require testing

laboratories to be accredited by the

National Institute of Standards and

technology under its National Voluntary

Laboratory Accreditation Program.

These changes would allow

manufacturers and suppliers to market

new equipment without having to

submit an application for equipment

authorization and await FCC approval.

This would save industry approximately

$250 million annually and would

stimulate the creation of jobs and

competition in the computer industry

by relaxing regulations that are

particularly burdensome for small

businesses.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before June 5, 1995, and reply

comments on or before July 5, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

A. Reed, Office of Engineering and

Technology, (202) 776–1627.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket No.

95–19, adopted February 7, 1995, and

released February 7, 1995. The complete

text of this Notice of Proposed Rule

Making is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC Reference Center (Room

239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington,