28122 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Stephen L. Johnson,

Director, Registration Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR

part 180 be amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

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

2. In § 180.1001 the table to

paragraphs (c) and (e) is amended by

revising the listing for ‘‘α-Alkyl C12-C15-

ω-hydroxy poly(oxyethylene) sulfate

and its ammonium, calcium,

magnesium, potassium, sodium and

zinc salts; the polyoxyethylene content

averages 3 moles’’ to read as follows:

§ 180.1001 Exemptions from the

requirements of a tolerance.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

Ingredients Limits Uses

* * * * * * *

α-Alkyl (C10-C15)-ω-hydroxy poly(oxyethylene) sulfate

and its ammonium, calcium, magnesium, potassium,

sodium, and zinc salts; the poly(oxyethylene) content averages 2 moles.

.............................................. Surfactants, related adjuvants of surfactants.

* * * * * * *

* * * * * (e) * * *

Ingredients Limits Uses

* * * * * * * ‘

α-Alkyl (C10-C15)-ω-hydroxy poly(oxyethylene) sulfate

and its ammonium, calcium, magnesium, potassium,

sodium, and zinc salts; the poly(oxyethylene) content averages 2 moles.

.............................................. Surfactants, related adjuvants of surfactants.

* * * * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–13437 Filed 6–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 0 and 80

[CI Docket 95–55; DA 96–822]

Inspection of Radio Installations on

Large Cargo and Small Passenger

Ships

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of

time.

SUMMARY: The United States Coast

Guard (Coast Guard) has requested an

extension of time to prepare comments

to a Notice of Proposed Rule Making

(NPRM) that the Commission adopted

on April 25, 1996. Because the Coast

Guard is responsible for maritime safety

in the United States and the

Commission is coordinating this

proposal with the Coast Guard we are

granting their request. The intended

effect of this extension is to permit the

Coast Guard and other interested parties

additional time to prepare comments.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before June 24, 1996, and reply

comments must be filed on or before

July 15, 1996. Written comments by the

public and federal agencies on the

proposed and/or modified information

collections are due by June 24, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to

filing comments with the Secretary, a

copy of any comments on the

information collections contained

herein should be submitted to Dorothy

Conway, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street,

N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the

Internet to dconway@fcc.gov, and to

Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236

NEOB, 725–17th Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the

Internet to fainlt@al.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George R. Dillon of the Compliance and

Information Bureau at (202) 418–1100.

For additional information concerning

the information collections contained in

this NPRM contact Dorothy Conway at

202–418–0217, or via the Internet at

dconway@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

25, 1996, the Commission adopted a

Notice of Proposed Rule Making, CI

Docket 95–55, FCC 96–194, 61 FR

21151, May 9, 1996, that proposed to

permit the Commission to use private

sector organizations to inspect all U. S.

cargo ships and passenger ships that are

required by statute to have an

inspection. Because the Commission’s

primary objective is preserving safety of

life at sea we requested specific

comments on how to ensure that safety

will not be compromised by using

private sector inspectors. Additionally,

we noted that we would coordinate this

proceeding with the U. S. Coast Guard.

1. The U. S. Coast Guard has

requested an extension of time in which

to file comments. The Coast Guard

states that the proposals are substantial

and that the additional time will permit

it to prepare a thorough review of the

proposal. We requested that comments

be filed by May 24, 1996, and reply

comments be filed by June 3, 1996.

2. Because Commission staff are

coordinating this proposal with the

Coast Guard and we have requested

their comments, we believe that an

extension of time is warranted. For good

cause shown, and pursuant to Sections
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28123

4(j) and 303(r)of the Communications

Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 154 (j) and 303

(r), it is ordered that the period of time

for filing comments and reply comments

in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making,

CI Docket 95–55, released on April 26,

1996, is hereby extended. Comments

must be filed on or before June 24, 1996.

Reply comments must be filed on or

before July 15, 1996.

3. To file formally in this proceeding,

you must file an original and four copies

of all comments, reply comments, and

supporting comments. If you want each

Commissioner to receive a personal

copy of your comments, you should file

an original and nine copies. You should

send your comments and reply

comments to Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20554.

4. You may also file informal

comments by electronic mail. You

should address informal comments to

gdillon@fcc.gov. You must put the

docket number of this proceeding on the

subject line (see the caption at the

beginning of this Notice). You must also

include your full name and Postal

Service mailing address in the text of

the message. Comments and reply

comments will be available for public

inspection during regular business

hours in the Reference Center of the

Federal Communications Commission

(Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554.

Federal Communications Commission.

Beverly G. Baker,

Chief, Compliance and Information Bureau.

[FR Doc. 96–13835 Filed 6–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

Denial of Petition for Rulemaking;

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of petition for

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document denies the

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)

petition to incorporate the latest version

of SAE J592 Clearance, Side Marker, and

Identification Lamps, and SAE J593

Backup Lamps, into Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.

108. NHTSA’s analysis of the petition

concludes that there is minimal benefit

to the public in updating the reference

to these SAE standards. While

incorporation would make them more

readily available to lighting and vehicle

design engineers as a reference, this is

a minimal benefit compared to the

expenditures of Agency resources to

implement it and other SAE standards

whose references in FMVSS No. 108 are

not the most recent. The Agency’s

commitment of its resources to its safety

priorities precludes granting this

petition. However, the agency has

compiled a reference document of

materials incorporated into FMVSS No.

108 to improve the availability of these

materials. This document is available

upon request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Richard L. Van Iderstine, Office of Crash

Avoidance Standards, NHTSA, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590. Mr. Van Iderstine’s telephone

number is: (202) 366–5280. His

facsimile number is (202) 366–4329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter

dated February 15, 1996, William A.

McKinney, Chairman of the Lighting

Coordinating Committee of the Society

of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

(Petitioner) petitioned the agency to

incorporate the latest version of SAE

J592 Clearance, Side Marker, and

Identification Lamps, and SAE J593

Backup Lamps, into 49 CFR 571.108

(Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices and

associated equipment.)

The Petitioner claimed the changes in

SAE J592 DEC94 Clearance, Side

Marker, and Identification Lamps

provide significant improvements as

follows:

a. Photometric performance

requirements are based on zones,

including 60% minimum requirement

for individual test points, and are

consistent with the required format used

for most signal and marking lamps

regulated by FMVSS 108, and a 0.5

degree radius tolerance area for

maximum readings is also additionally

specified to allow for inconsequential

light streaks,

b. Additional explanations and

guidelines for installation are provided,

c. The format and content is

consistent with the current SAE

formatting requirements, and

d. Information on SAE publications

referenced in the document is

incorporated.

The petitioner claimed the changes in

SAE J593 OCT95 Backup provide the

following:

a. A definition of point of visibility,

b. Photometric performance

requirements based on zones, including

60% minimum requirement for

individual test points, thus allowing the

deletion of FMVSS 108, Figure 2,

Minimum Luminous Intensity

Requirements for Backup Lamps,

c. A specific maximum requirement of

500 cd for a one (1) backup lamp

system, whereas the current FMVSS

108, Table 2 footnote leaves the

maximum requirement subject to

interpretation,

d. Specific requirements for limiting

and measuring the currently specified

‘‘incidental red, amber, or white light

* * *.’’

e. Additional explanations and

guidelines for photometry and

installation,

f. Revised format with content that is

consistent with the current SAE

formatting requirements, and

g. Information on SAE publications

referenced in the document.

Petitioner further claimed that these

revisions make new versions easier to

apply, as well as easier to find because

they are located in current SAE

Handbooks. Petitioner also claimed that

the changes would not adversely affect

the costs of any lighting. No claims

about safety or performance were made.

The agency has reviewed what would

be required to implement the

Petitioner’s desired solution. It has

found that the tests and many

requirements of the new documents are

from other SAE standards newer than

those referenced in FMVSS No. 108,

making an update only partially of value

to any particular user.

Thus, the advantage claimed by

Petitioner by referencing standards in

current SAE Handbooks appears to be

very small because this action would

update only the two referenced

documents, and none of the

subreferenced documents. Additionally,

because NHTSA reference to SAE

standards is not always absolute, in that

parts of standards are referenced or

exceptions are made to specific

requirements in SAE standards where

different or more stringent performance

is necessary for safety purposes, the

value of having the latest version of an

SAE document is lessened. Thus,

without a careful reading of FMVSS No.

108, a reader of the newest referenced

documents could be misled as to the

pertinent requirements, just as can

occur with the currently referenced

versions.

Additionally, it is unlikely these two

documents, or any version of a

referenced industry standard would be

wholly usable for more than just a short

period of time and probably would be

out of print within no more than five

years because of SAE’s 5-year schedule