Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 1996 / Proposed Rules 27323

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 36 and 69

[CC Docket No. 96–45; DA–96–702]

Federal-State Joint Board on Universal

Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule: Denial of

extension of time.

SUMMARY: On May 6, 1996, the Federal

Communications Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) released an Order

(‘‘Order’’) denying a request to extend

the deadline for filing reply comments

to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

and Order Establishing Joint Board,

released March 8, 1996 (CC Docket No.

96–45). The Commission denied the

request out of concern that further delay

in this proceeding might jeopardize the

Joint Board’s ability to issue a

recommended decision within the

statutory deadline set forth in the 1996

Telecommunications Act. By not

extending the period for filing reply

comments, the Commission intends to

support the Joint Board in its resolve to

announce its recommended decision on

or before the statutory deadline of

November 8, 1996.

DATES: Reply comments were due on or

before May 8, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

1919 M Street NW., Washington, D.C.

20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon

Reel, 202–418–0850, Accounting and

Audits Division, Common Carrier

Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March

8, 1996, the Federal Communications

Commission released a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking and Order

Establishing Joint Board (‘‘NPRM’’), 61

FR 10499 (March 14, 1996). The

Commission sought comment on all

matters discussed in that NPRM. The

deadline for comments was April 8,

1996 and the deadline for reply

comments was May 3, 1996. On April 1,

1996, the Commission released an Order

that extended the comment period until

April 12, 1996 and the reply comment

period until May 7, 1996 for all

interested parties. On April 30, 1996,

Information Renaissance and California

Technology Assistance Project

(petitioners) filed a joint request for a

seven day further extension of the reply

comment deadline. Petitioners argued

that a further extension would permit

parties to avail themselves of the

original comments that petitioners had

put on the World Wide Web in

electronic form, and thereby file reply

comments based upon a better

knowledge of the original comments.

Believing that a further extension of

time would seriously jeopardize the

Joint Board’s ability to issue a

recommended decision within the

statutory deadline set forth in the Act,

the Commission found that the public

interest would not be served by a further

extension of time. Pursuant to the

Commission’s rules governing motions

for the extension of time (47 CFR

§ 1.46), however, parties have two

business days grace after the

Commission acts on a timely filed

motion for an extension of time.

Because the Commission denied

petitioner’s motion on May 6, 1996,

reply comments were due May 8, 1996.

Federal Communications Commission.

Kenneth P. Moran,

Chief, Accounting and Audits Division,

Common Carrier Bureau.

[FR Doc. 96–13667 Filed 5–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket PS–140(e); Notice 6]

RIN 2137–AC34

Areas Unusually Sensitive to

Environmental Damage

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Public workshop.

SUMMARY: RSPA invites industry,

government agencies, and the public to

the fifth workshop on unusually

sensitive areas (USAs). The purpose of

this workshop is to openly discuss

drinking water resources. This

workshop is a continuation of the USA

workshops held June 15–16, 1995;

October 17, 1995; January 18, 1996; and

April 10–11, 1996.

DATES: The workshop will be held on

June 18–19, 1996, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00

p.m. Persons who are unable to attend

may submit written comments in

duplicate by July 30, 1996. However,

persons submitting comments to be

considered at the June 18–19 workshop

must do so by June 10, 1966. Interested

persons should submit as part of their

written comments all material that is

relevant to a statement of fact or

argument. Late filed comments will be

considered so far as practicable.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held

at the U.S. DOT, Nassif Building, 400

Seventh Street SW., Room 6244–48,

Washington, DC. Non-federal employee

visitors are admitted into the DOT

building through the southwest entrance

at Seventh and E Streets SW. Persons

who want to participate in the

workshop should call (202) 366–2392 or

e-mail their name, affiliation, and phone

number to samesc@rspa.dot.gov before

close of business June 10, 1996.

Send written comments in duplicate

to the Dockets Unit, Room 8421, RSPA,

U.S. DOT, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20590–0001. Identify

the docket and notice numbers stated in

the heading of this notice.

All comments and docketed materials

will be available for inspection and

copying in Room 8421 between 8:30

a.m. and 4:30 p.m. each business day. A

summary of the workshop will be

available from the Dockets Unit about

three weeks after the workshop.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christina Sames, (202) 366–4561, about

this document, or the Dockets Unit,

(202) 366–5046, for copies of this

document or other material in the

docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

pipeline safety laws (49 U.S.C. § 60109)

require the Secretary of Transportation

to prescribe regulations that establish

criteria for identifying each hazardous

liquid pipeline facility and gathering

line, whether otherwise subject to 49

U.S.C. Chapter 601, located in an area

that the Secretary, in consultation with

the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), describes as unusually sensitive

to environmental damage if there is a

hazardous liquid pipeline accident.

Consistent with the President’s

regulatory policy (E.O. 12866), RSPA

wants to accomplish this congressional

mandate at the least cost to society.

Toward this end, RSPA is seeking early

public participation in the rulemaking

process by holding public workshops at

which participants, including RSPA

staff, may exchange views on relevant

issues. RSPA hopes these workshops

will enable government and industry to

reach a better understanding of the

problem and the potential solutions

before proposed rules are issued.

To date, RSPA has held four public

workshops on unusually sensitive areas

(USAs). Participants at the workshops

have included representatives from the

hazardous liquid pipeline industry; the

Departments of Interior, Agriculture,

Transportation, and Commerce; EPA;
27324 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 1996 / Proposed Rules

non-government agencies; and the

public.

The first workshop was held on June

15 and 16, 1995, and focused on criteria

being considered to determine USAs (60

FR 27948; May 26, 1995). A second

workshop held on October 17, 1995,

focused on developing a process that

could be used to determine if an area is

a USA (60 FR 44824; August 29, 1995).

The third workshop on January 18,

1996, focused on guiding principles for

determining USAs (61 FR 342; January

4, 1996).

Participants at the fourth workshop

held April 10–11, 1996, (61 FR 13144;

March 26, 1996) discussed the criteria,

components, and parameters of the

following ten terms that have been used

when describing USAs: Significant,

Threat of significant contamination,

Contamination, Ecological, Drinking

water resources, Recreational areas,

Economic areas, Cultural areas, Readily

available, and Uniform. Participants

also discussed the scope and objectives

of the additional USA workshops.

Additional information and the

results of the four workshops can be

obtained from the RSPA Docket Unit at

(202) 366–5046. Please reference Docket

PS–140, PS–140(a), PS–140(b), and PS–

140(c), when requesting the

information.

API Technical Meeting

On May 9–10, 1996, the American

Petroleum Institute (API) held a meeting

of technical experts to discuss drinking

water resources. RSPA and EPA

attended this meeting and provided a

draft discussion point paper on drinking

water resources that RSPA intends to

discuss at its public workshop on

drinking water resources. The draft

discussed possible areas of primary

concern (also known as USA

candidates) and possible filtering

criteria that could be used in

determining which drinking water

resources are unusually sensitive to

damage from a hazardous liquid

pipeline release. The unedited notes

from the API meeting and all materials

presented at that meeting can be

obtained from the Dockets Unit at the

above address. Please reference Docket

PS–140(d) when requesting the

information.

The following discusses the areas of

primary concern and filtering criteria for

drinking water resources that are

currently being considered. This draft

will be discussed in detail at the June

18 and 19 workshop. This draft is not

final and RSPA invites comments on

these primary concerns, filtering

criteria, and issues. This draft and any

additional information that is submitted

to the docket before June 10 will be

considered at the June 18–19 workshop.

Drinking Water Resource Areas of

Primary Concern

Drinking water resource areas of

primary concern (USA candidates) are a

subset of the drinking water surface

intakes and groundwater based drinking

water supplies. Drinking water USA

candidates being considered include:

A. Public Water System (PWS):

provides piped water for human

consumption to at least 15 service

connections or serves an average of at

least 25 people for at least 60 days each

year. These systems include the sources

of the water supplies—i.e., surface or

ground, PWSs can be community,

nontransient noncommunity, or

transient noncommunity systems.

1. Community Water System (CWS): a

PWS that provides water to the same

population year round.

2. Nontransient Noncommunity Water

System (NTNCWS): a PWS that regularly

serves at least 25 of the same people at

least six months of the year. [Examples

of these systems include schools,

factories, and hospitals that have their

own water supplies.]

3. Transient Noncommunity Water

System (TNCWS): a PWS that caters to

transitory customers in nonresidential

areas (e.g., campgrounds motels, and gas

stations).

B. Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA):

the surface and subsurface area

surrounding a well or well field that

supplies a public water system through

which contaminants are likely to pass

and eventually reach the water well or

well field.

C. Sole Source Aquifer (SSA): areas

designated by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency under the Sole

Source Aquifer program as the ‘‘sole or

principal’’ source of drinking water for

an area.

Drinking Water Resource Filtering

Criteria

Filtering criteria are intended to assist

RSPA in determining which areas of

primary concern are truly unusually

sensitive to damage from a hazardous

liquid pipeline release. Drinking water

resource filtering criteria would be

applied to the drinking water resource

areas of primary concern to determine

which of the USA candidates are USAs.

RSPA is considering the following

filtering criteria and has listed issues

under each:

Filter Criteria #11: If the public water

system is a Transient Noncommunity

Water System (TNCWS), the water

intakes shall not be designated as USAs.

Filter Criteria #1 Issue: The readily

available data source that would be used

to make this determination on a

nationwide basis is the Federal

Reporting Data System (FRDS), that is

being replaced by the Safe Drinking

Water Information System (SDWIS).

There are concerns about the quality of

this database and whether it can be used

to confidently identify TNCWSs.

Filter Criteria #2: For CWS and

NTNCWS that obtain their water supply

primarily from surface water sources,

and do not have an adequate alternative

source of water, the water intakes shall

be designated as USAs.

Filter Criteria #2 Issues:

A. A definition is needed for an

adequate alternative source of water.

The intent is that, in the event of a spill

which threatens to shut down a water

intake, there would be surface water

intakes in a different surface water body

that are not in the threat zone, or there

would be groundwater sources that

could be utilized during the threat

period, or there would be other drinking

water systems that could temporarily

provide drinking water to the shutdown system.

B. There are no readily available

national databases on which this

filtering criteria could be applied.

Filter Criteria #3: For CWS and

NTNCWS that obtain their water supply

primarily from groundwater sources,

where the source aquifer is identified as

a Class I or Class IIa (as identified in

Pettyjohn et al., 1991; EPA Document:

EPA/600/2–91/043, August 1991; see

Attachment A), and that do not have an

adequate alternative source of water, the

WHPAs for such systems shall be

designated as USAs.

Filter Criteria #3 Issues:

A. Determination of the source aquifer

is a complex problem, and no national

database is available. Furthermore, for

some CWS and NTNCWS, the depth of

the wells or source aquifer is not

known.

B. Seven states do not have Wellhead

Protection Programs. Where WHPAs are

not adequately delineated, WHPA

(criteria, threshold, methods, etc.) will

be generated.

C. A definition is needed for an

adequate alternative source of water for

groundwater systems.

D. The classification system discussed

in Filter Criteria #3 (above) has data

coverage for the conterminous United

States. Data for Alaska, Hawaii, and all

other U.S. possessions must be

identified.

Filter Criteria #4: For CWS and

NTNCWS that obtain their water supply

primarily from groundwater sources,

where the source aquifer is identified as
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 1996 / Proposed Rules 27325

a Class IIb, Class IIc or Class U (as

identified in Pettyjohn et al., 1991; EPA

Document: EPA/600/2–91/043, August

1991; see Attachment A), the public

water systems that rely on these aquifers

shall not be designated as USAs.

Filter Criteria #5: For CWS and

NTNCWS that obtain their water supply

primarily from ground water sources,

where the source aquifer is identified as

a Class I or Class IIa (as identified in

Pettyjohn et al., 1991; EPA Document:

EPA/600/2–91/043, August 1991; see

Attachment A), and the aquifer is

designated as a sole source aquifer, an

area twice the WHPA shall be

designated as an USA.

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 23,

1966.

Richard B. Felder,

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

Attachment A

Recommended Data Source: EPA Report

600/2–91/043. Regional Assessment of

Aquifer Vulnerability and Sensitivity in the

Conterminous United States. Office of

Research and Development, Washington, DC.

319pp.

The following information was obtained

from pages 6–8 of the above report:

CLASS I AQUIFERS (Surficial or shallow,

permeable units; highly vulnerable to

contamination).

Unconsolidated Aquifers (Class Ia): Class la

aquifers consist of surficial, unconsolidated,

and permeable alluvial, terrace, outwash,

beach, dune and other similar deposits.

These units generally contain layers of sand

and gravel that, commonly, are interbedded

to some degree with silt and clay. Not all

deposits mapped as Class la are important

water-bearing units, but they are likely to be

both permeable and vulnerable. The only

natural protection of aquifers of this class is

the thickness of the unsaturated zone and the

presence of fine-grained material.

Soluble and Fractured Bedrock Aquifers

(Class Ib): Lithologies in this class include

limestone, dolomite, and locally, evaporitic

units that contain documented karst features

or solution channels, regardless of size.

Generally these systems have a wide range in

permeability * * * Also included in this

class are sedimentary strata, and

metamorphic and igneous (intrusive and

extrusive) rocks that are significantly faulted,

fractured, or jointed. In all cases groundwater

movement is largely controlled by secondary

openings. Well yields range widely, but the

important feature is the potential for rapid

vertical and lateral ground water movement

along preferred pathways, which result in a

high degree of vulnerability.

Semiconsolidated Aquifers (Class Ic):

Semiconsolidated systems generally contain

poorly to moderately indurated sand and

gravel that is interbedded with clay and silt.

This group is intermediate to the

unconsolidated and consolidated end

members. These systems are common in the

Tertiary age rocks that are exposed

throughout the Gulf and Atlantic coastal

states. Semiconsolidated conditions also

arise from the presence of intercalated clay

and caliche within primarily unconsolidated

to poorly consolidated units, such as occurs

in parts of the High Plains Aquifer.

Covered Aquifers (Class Id): This class

consists of any Class I aquifer that is overlain

by less than 50 feet of low permeability,

unconsolidated material, such as glacial till,

lacustrian, and loess deposits.

CLASS II AQUIFERS (Consolidated

bedrock aquifers; moderately vulnerable).

Higher Yield Bedrock Aquifers (Class IIa):

These aquifers generally consist of fairly

permeable sandstone or conglomerate that

contain lesser amounts of interbedded fine

grained clastics (shale, siltstone, mudstone)

and occasionally carbonate units. In general,

well yields must exceed 50 gpm to be

included in this class. Locally fracturing may

contribute to the dominant primary porosity

and permeability of these systems.

Lower Yield Bedrock Aquifers (Class IIb):

In most cases, these aquifers consist of

sedimentary or crystalline rocks. Most

commonly, lower yield systems consist of the

same classic rock types present in the higher

yield systems, but in the former case grain

size is generally smaller and the degree of

cementation or induration is greater, both of

which lead to a lower permeability. In many

existing and ancient mountain regions, such

as the Appalachians (Blue Ridge and

Piedmont), the core consists of crystalline

rocks that are fractured to some degree. Well

yields are commonly less than 50 gpm,

although they may be larger in valleys than

on interstream divides.

Covered Bedrock Aquifers (Class IIc): This

group consists of Class IIa and IIb aquifers

that are overlain by less than 50 feet of

unconsolidated material of loq permeability,

such as glacial till, lacustrian, or loess

deposits. It is assumed that most Class V

wells are relatively shallow and, therefore, 50

feet or less of fine grained cover could reduce

but not necessarily eliminate the

vulnerability of underlying Class II systems.

CLASS III (Consolidated or unconsolidated

aquifers that are overlain by more than 50

feet of low permeability material; low

vulnerability).

Aquifers of this type are the least

vulnerable of all the classes because they are

naturally protected by a thick layer of fine

grained material, such as glacial till or shale.

Examples include parts of the Northern Great

Plains where the Pierre Shale of Cretaceous

age crops out over thousands of square miles

and is hundreds of feet thick. In many of the

glaciated states, till forms an effective cover

over bedrock or buried outwash aquifers, and

elsewhere alternating layers of shale,

siltstone, and fine grained sandstone insulate

and protect the deeper major water bearing

zones * * *

CLASS U (Undifferentiated aquifers): This

classification is used where several lithologic

and hydrologic conditions are present within

a mappable area. Units are assigned to this

class because of constraints of mapping scale,

the presenece of undelineated members

within a formation or group, or the presence

of nonuniformly occurring features, such as

fracturing. This class is intended to convey

a wider range of vulnerability than is usually

contained within any other single class.

SUBCLASS V (Variable covered aquifers):

The modifier ‘‘v’’, such as Class IIa–v, is used

to describe areas where an undetermined or

highly variable thickness of low permeability

sediments overlie the major water bearing

zone. To provide the largest amount of

information, the underlying aquifer was

mapped as if the cover were absent, and the

‘‘v’’ designation was added to the

classification. The ‘‘v’’ indicates that a

variable thickness of low permeability

material covers the aquifer and, since the

thickness of the cover, to a large degree,

controls vulnerability, this aspect is

undefined.

[FR Doc. 96–13530 Filed 5–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–M

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 96–51, Notice 01]

RIN 2127–AG16

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards Door Locks and Door

Retention Components

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice grants a petition

for rulemaking submitted by

Independent Mobility Systems, Inc.

(IMS), to exclude wheelchair ramps

from the Federal motor vehicle safety

standard that establishes performance

requirements for door locks and door

retention components. Since side doors

equipped with wheelchair lifts are

excluded from the standard, the

petitioner requests that the standard be

amended to also exclude side doors

equipped with wheelchair ramps.

NHTSA believes that the amendment

suggested by IMS merits further

research and study. To that extent,

therefore, the agency grants IMS’

petition. The granting of this petition,

however, does not necessarily mean that

a rule will be issued.

The determination of whether to issue

a rule will be made in the course of the

rulemaking proceeding in accordance

with statutory criteria.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical issues: Mr. Maurice Hicks,

Light Duty Vehicle Division, Office of

Crashworthiness Standards, National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–6345;

facsimile (202) 366–4329.

For legal issues: Walter Myers, Office

of the Chief Counsel, National Highway