The Board's current rule at 5 CFR 1201.53(a) provides that a verbatim record of a hearing in a Board case must be prepared under the supervision of the judge. The amendment to this rule published today makes clear that a verbatim record, the single official record of the hearing, will be kept in the Board's copy of the appeal file. The amendment also makes clear that an audio tape recording, video tape recording, or written transcript will be the official hearing record. Under the Board's current rule at 5 CFR 1201.53(b), a copy of a hearing tape recording or written transcript is to be made available to a party upon request and upon payment of costs. The amendment to 5 CFR 1201.53(b) published today requires that parties send requests for copies of hearing tape recordings or written transcripts to the adjudicating regional or field office or to the Clerk of the Board as appropriate. Because the current rule at 5 CFR 1201.53(b) only states procedures for parties to request copies of hearing tape recordings or written transcripts, the amendment notifies non-parties that their requests for copies of hearing tape recordings or written transcripts are controlled by the Board's rules at 5 CFR part 1204 (Freedom of Information Act). In addition, the amendment provides that only hearing tape recordings or written transcripts prepared by the official hearing reporter will be accepted by the Board as the official record of the hearing. The amendment to 5 CFR 1201.53(c) clarifies procedures for parties to request an exception to payment of the cost for hearing tape recordings or written transcripts. The current rule at 5 CFR 1201.53(d) has been amended because it refers to written transcripts and the Board now tape records its hearings. The new section 5 CFR 1201.53(e) includes a revision of 5 CFR 1201.54 Thus, the current rule at 5 CFR 1201.54 has been removed.

The Board is publishing this rule as a final rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 1204(h).

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance; however, interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the docket and special conditions number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. These special conditions may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this request must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. NM171.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

On November 29, 1999, Electronic Cable Specialists, 5300 West Franklin Drive, Franklin, Wisconsin 53132, applied for a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) to modify Airbus A300 Model B2-1A, B2-1C, B4-2C, B2K-3C, B4-103, B2-203, B4-203 airplanes approved under Type Certificate No. A35EU. These are transport category airplanes with twin engines, and a seating capacity of up to 267 passengers. The modification incorporates the installation of Honeywell Classic Navigator Systems. Each system consists of a Honeywell HT-9100 Navigation Management System, a Super Attitude Heading Reference System, and a Digital to Analog Adapter. These advanced systems use electronics to a far greater extent than the original Inertial Navigation Systems and may be more susceptible to electrical and magnetic interference. This disruption of signals could result in loss of attitude or present misleading information to the pilot.

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Electronic Cable Specialists must show that Airbus A300 Model B2-1A, B2-1C, B4-2C, B2K-3C, B4-103, B2-203, B4-203 airplanes, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. A35EU, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The certification basis for the modified Airbus A300 Model B2-1A, B2-1C, B4-2C, B2K-3C, B4-103, B2-203, B4-203 airplanes includes 14 CFR part 25, dated February 1, 1965, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-21.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., part 25, as amended) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Airbus A300 Model B2-1A, B2-1C, B4-2C, B2K-3C, B4-103, B2-203, B4-203 airplanes because of novel or unusual design features, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Airbus A300 Model B2-1A, B2-1C, B4-2C, B2K-3C, B4-103, B2-203, B4-203 airplanes must comply with the part 25 fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the part 25 noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

Special conditions, as appropriate, are issued in accordance with § 11.49, as required by §§ 11.28 and 11.29(b), and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.101(b)(2).

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should Electronic Cable Specialists apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model already included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).

The Airbus A300 Model B2-1A, B2-1C, B4-2C, B2K-3C, B4-103, B2-203, B4-203 airplanes will incorporate a new navigation system, which was not available at the time of certification of these airplanes, that performs critical functions. This system may be vulnerable to high intensity radiated fields (HIRF) external to the airplane.

There is no specific regulation that addresses protection requirements for electrical and electronic systems from HIRF. Increased power levels from ground-based radio transmitters and the growing use of sensitive electrical and electronic systems to command and control airplanes have made it necessary to provide adequate protection.

To ensure that a level of safety is achieved equivalent to that intended by the regulations incorporated by reference, special conditions are needed for the Airbus A300 Model B2-1A, B2-1C, B4-2C, B2K-3C, B4-103, B2-203, B4-203 airplanes, which require that new electrical and electronic systems, such as the Honeywell Navigator Systems, that perform critical functions be designed and installed to preclude component damage and interruption of function due to both the direct and indirect effects of HIRF.

With the trend toward increased power levels from ground-based transmitters, plus the advent of space and satellite communications coupled with electronic command and control of the airplane, the immunity of critical digital avionics systems to HIRF must be established.

It is not possible to precisely define the HIRF to which the airplane will be exposed in service. There is also uncertainty concerning the effectiveness of airframe shielding for HIRF. Furthermore, coupling of electromagnetic energy to cockpit-installed equipment through the cockpit window apertures is undefined. Based on surveys and analysis of existing HIRF emitters, an adequate level of protection exists when compliance with the HIRF protection special condition is shown with either paragraph 1, or 2 below:

1. A minimum threat of 100 volts per meter root-mean-square (rms) electric field strength from 10 KHz to 18 GHz.

a. The threat must be applied to the system elements and their associated wiring harnesses without the benefit of airframe shielding.

b. Demonstration of this level of protection is established through system tests and analysis.

2. A threat external to the airframe of the following field strengths for the frequency ranges indicated. Both peak and average field strength components from the table are to be demonstrated.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable Airbus A300 Model B2-1A, B2-1C, B4-2C, B2K-3C, B4-103, B2-203, B4-203 airplanes modified by Electronic Cable Specialists. Should Electronic Cable Specialists apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).

This action affects only certain design features on Airbus A300 Model B2-1A, B2-1C, B4-2C, B2K-3C, B4-103, B2-203, B4-203 airplanes modified by Electronic Cable Specialists. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.

The substance of the special conditions for this airplane has been subjected to the notice and comment procedure in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. For this reason, and because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 757-200 and -200PF series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on October 6, 1999 (64 FR 54227). That action proposed to require repetitive detailed visual inspections to detect loose fuse pins in the outboard beam attachment and forward trunnion support on the main landing gear (MLG) and to detect corrosion on the structure adjacent to the fuse pin; and corrective actions, if necessary. That action also proposed to require eventual replacement of the fuse pins with new corrosion resistant steel (CRES) fuse pins, which would constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the single comment received.

The commenter requests that the proposed repetitive inspection interval be changed from 3,000 flight cycles or 24 months (whichever occurs first) to either 36 months or to 3,000 flight cycles or 24 months (whichever is later). The commenter states that 3,000 flight cycles does not correspond to the 24-month calendar time. The commenter adds that 36 months would more closely reflect the amount of time it takes for its airplanes to accumulate 3,000 flight cycles.

The FAA does not concur with this request. This AD addresses corrosion of the fuse pins, which is a time-related phenomenon. Therefore, the critical element of the repetitive inspection interval in this case is the amount of calendar time that passes between inspections, rather than the number of flight cycles accumulated. Therefore, the FAA finds that the repetitive inspection interval of 3,000 flight cycles or 24 months, whichever occurs first, is appropriate to address the identified unsafe condition in a timely manner and to ensure an adequate level of safety. No change to the final rule is necessary.

Since the issuance of the proposed AD, the FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Service Bulletin 757-57A0054, Revision 1, including Appendix A, both dated December 16, 1999. (The original issue of the service bulletin is referenced in the proposal as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishment of the actions required by this AD.) Revision 1 is essentially equivalent to the original issue; however, Revision 1 adds references to optional parts and changes certain compliance recommendations. Revision 1 recommends that, if the alloy steel fuse pins have already been replaced on an airplane that was four years (or more) old, the inspection of those pins can be extended to within four years or 6,000 flight cycles after installation. A new paragraph (b) has been added to the final rule to specify the revised compliance time for those particular airplanes.

The FAA also has revised the final rule to include Revision 1 of the service bulletin as an additional source of service information. Further, the FAA has revised references to the original issue of the service bulletin to include Appendix A, dated November 5, 1998.

After careful review of the available data, including the comment noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

There are approximately 805 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 350 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

It will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $21,000, or $60 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

It will take approximately 440 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required replacement, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. The manufacturer has committed previously to its customers that it will bear the cost of replacement parts. As a result, the cost of those parts are not attributable to this AD. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the replacement required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $9,240,000, or $26,400 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect 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, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) 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 final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to Turbomeca Turboshaft Arrius 1A series turboshaft engines was published in the Federal Register on December 1, 1999 (64 FR 67206). That action proposed to require installation of module TU63, which provides a separate supply of fuel for one of the 10 main injectors of the fuel injection system. That action was prompted by reports of cracked injection wheels. That condition, if not corrected, could result in an unexpected power loss, which could result in an in-flight engine shutdown, autorotation, and a forced landing.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received.

There are approximately 100 engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that nine engines installed on aircraft of US registry would be affected by this AD, that it would take approximately 1 work hour per engine to accomplish the actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $5,500 per engine. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on US operators is estimated to be $50,040. The manufacturer has advised the DGAC that they may provide module TU63 at no cost to the operator, thereby substantially reducing the cost impact of this rule.

This rule does not have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order 13132, because it would not have a substantial direct effect 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. Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted with state authorities prior to publication of this rule.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) 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 final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to Turbomeca Makila 1 series turboshaft engines was published in the Federal Register on December 8, 1999 (64 FR 68642). That action proposed to require a one-time visual inspection of the scavenge and lubrication systems for obstruction due to coke deposits, then reconditioning of the engine oil system prior to return to service. That action was prompted by report of an in-flight engine shutdown due to roller bearings contaminated by certain types of detergent oil. That condition, if not corrected, could result in an in-flight engine shutdown due to roller bearing failure following oil contamination.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received.

There are approximately 1,076 engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 5 engines installed on aircraft of U.S. registry would be affected by this AD, that it would take approximately 14 work hours per engine to accomplish the actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $4,200.

This rule does not have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order 13132, because it will not have a substantial direct effect 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. Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted with state authorities prior to publication of this rule.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) 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 final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to Turbomeca Turboshaft Artouste III series turboshaft engines was published in the Federal Register December 8, 1999 (64 FR 68644). That action proposed to require smoke emissions checks after every ground engine shutdown. If smoke is detected, that action would require inspecting for fuel flow. If fuel flow is not detected, the engine may have injection wheel cracks, which would require removing the engine from service for repair. If fuel flow is detected, the engine may have a malfunctioning electric fuel cock, which would require removing the electric fuel cock from service and replacing it with a serviceable part. That action was prompted by reports of cracked injection wheels. That condition, if not corrected, could result in an in-flight engine shutdown.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

There are approximately 2,279 engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 184 engines installed on rotorcraft of U.S. registry would be affected by this AD, that it would take approximately 1 work hour per engine to accomplish the actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $3,500 per engine. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $655,040.

This rule does not have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order 13132, because it will not have a substantial direct effect 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. Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted with state authorities prior to publication of this rule.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) 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 final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on August 20, 1999 (64 FR 45477). That action proposed to require repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the lower corners of the door frame and cross beam of the forward cargo door, and corrective actions, if necessary. That action also proposed to require eventual modification of the outboard radius of the lower corners of the door frame and reinforcement of the cross beam of the forward cargo door, which would constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received.

Regarding the proposed requirement to replace any cracked door frame with a new door frame, one commenter questions whether there is no level of damage that can be repaired. The commenter states that it would be preferable for operators to repair a cracked door frame when possible, and only replace the door frame with a new door frame if damage is beyond repair limits.

The FAA infers that the commenter is requesting that paragraph (a)(2)(i) of the proposal be revised to allow repair of the door frame, in lieu of replacement of the door frame with a new door frame, when cracking is within repair limits. The FAA concurs with this request. The FAA finds that it may be possible for damage within certain limits to be repaired. However, no service information that defines allowable limits for repairable damage is available. Without established limits and defined repair procedures, all proposed repairs on the door frame must be approved by the FAA or an authorized Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative (DER). The FAA has revised paragraph (a)(2)(i) and added paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(A) and (a)(2)(i)(B) to this final rule, to provide repair of a cracked door frame and replacement of a cracked door frame with a new door frame as two alternatives for compliance with paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this AD. (Operators should note that regardless of which alternative for compliance is accomplished, this AD requires installation of a cross beam repair and reinforcement modification of the cross beam, as specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this AD, and modification of the repaired or replaced door frame, as specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this AD.)

One commenter requests that the compliance time for the terminating action be increased from four years, as proposed, to 75,000 total flight cycles, as required by AD 90-06-02, amendment 39-6489 (55 FR 8372, March 7, 1990). The commenter states that a compliance threshold based on calendar time, rather than on the total number of flight cycles, is inconsistent, because fatigue cracking is related to cabin pressurization cycles. Further, the commenter states that the proposed threshold of four years will cause unnecessary cost to operators that have relatively new or low-flight-cycle airplanes.

The FAA partially concurs with the commenter's request. The FAA does not concur that a threshold of 75,000 total flight cycles for accomplishment of the terminating action, as currently required by AD 90-06-02, provides an adequate level of safety. However, the FAA does concur that fatigue cracking is a function of pressurization cycles and, thus, a threshold based on flight cycles should be included for the terminating action. Therefore, paragraphs (c) and (d) of this final rule have been revised to specify accomplishment of the actions required by that paragraph within 4 years or 12,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

For the initial inspections specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the proposal, one commenter requests, for certain airplanes, an increase in the proposed compliance time of one year or 4,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, to prior to the accumulation of 12,000 total flight cycles on the cargo door. The commenter states that, “if an operator has accurate accounting of the history of the cargo door, then the number of flight cycles for this door can be determined.”

Another commenter requests that the compliance time for the initial inspections specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the proposal be increased to between 15,000 and 20,000 total flight cycles. That commenter states that a compliance time of one year or 4,500 flight cycles is “harsh for young aircraft.” The commenter also claims that cracking in the door frames does not start until 20,000 to 30,000 total flight cycles.

The FAA does not concur with the commenters' requests to increase the compliance time for the inspections. In the preamble of the proposal, the FAA explained the difference between the compliance time stated in the service bulletin and the proposed compliance time by stating that the number of total flight cycles for an airplane may not be a good indicator of the number of total flight cycles for the forward cargo door. For example, a door may have been removed from an airplane with many total flight cycles and installed on an airplane with fewer total flight cycles. Also, the FAA has received a report indicating that a cracked door frame was found on an airplane that had accumulated 15,700 total flight cycles. This report contradicts the second commenter's claim that cracking of the door frames does not start until 20,000 to 30,000 total flight cycles. In view of the nature of the cracking and the severity of the unsafe condition addressed by this AD (rapid depressurization of the airplane), the FAA finds that it would be inappropriate to extend the compliance time for the actions required by this AD. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter requests that paragraph (a)(2)(i) of the proposal be revised to specify a part number or modification status for the replacement door frame. The FAA infers that the commenter is stating that, by making the proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i) more specific, paragraph (a)(2)(ii) would be unnecessary and could be removed from the AD. The commenter states that it is not clear why a new door frame should have to be modified, and points out that no specific instructions are provided for modification of new door frames. The commenter also states that introduction of a new door frame that does not require additional modification [such as the modification described in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of the proposal] is in order.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. To date, the manufacturer has not issued service information that provides specific instructions on how to modify new door frames. Without such instructions, the FAA cannot provide specific instructions for modification of replaced door frames and, therefore, cannot revise paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of this AD. The FAA anticipates that the manufacturer will issue a new revision of the service bulletin that, among other things, will include instructions for modification of replaced door frames. However, based on the nature of the cracking and the unsafe condition addressed by this AD, the FAA finds that it would be inappropriate to delay this AD until the manufacturer issues a new revision of the service bulletin.

With regard to the commenter's question of why it is necessary to modify new door frames, as stated in the preamble of the proposal, the FAA has received reports that cracks have been detected in redesigned door frames, though these frames were supposed to be less susceptible to fatigue cracking. No new design has been developed. Therefore, to prevent any more cracking, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to require a reinforcement modification on newly installed door frames. There is no door frame currently available that is acceptable for installation without such modification. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

There are approximately 3,100 Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 1,400 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required inspections, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspections required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $84,000, or $60 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

It will take approximately 38 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required terminating modifications at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost $1,865 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the terminating modifications required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $5,803,000, or $4,145 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect 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, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) 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 final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to all I.A.M. Model Piaggio P-180 airplanes was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on December 22, 1999 (64 FR 71694). The NPRM proposed to require repetitively inspecting the brake assembly rods and tubings for wear or damage, and replacing any worn or damaged parts.

Accomplishment of the proposed inspections as specified in the NPRM would be required in accordance with Piaggio Service Bulletin (Mandatory) No.: SB-80-0107, Original Issue: April 30, 1999. Accomplishment of any necessary replacement as specified in the NPRM would be required in accordance with the maintenance manual.

The NPRM was the result of mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for Italy.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the proposed rule or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.

After careful review of all available information related to the subject presented above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for minor editorial corrections. The FAA has determined that these minor corrections will not change the meaning of the AD and will not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed.

The FAA estimates that 4 airplanes in the U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 3 workhours per airplane to accomplish the initial inspection, and that the average labor rate is approximately $60 an hour. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the initial inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $720, or $180 per airplane.

These figures only take into account the cost of the initial inspection and do not take into account the costs of any replacements necessary or repetitive inspections. The FAA has no way of determining the number of parts that will need replacement or the number of inspections each owner/operator of the affected airplanes will incur.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect 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, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) 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 final 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 .

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 777 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on October 27, 1999 (64 FR 57794). That action proposed to require replacement of the clevis ends on the tie rods for the center stowage bin supports with improved clevis ends.

Since the issuance of the proposal, the FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Service Bulletin 777-25-0120, Revision 1, dated March 16, 2000. Revision 1 of the service bulletin is substantially similar to the original issue (which was referenced in the proposal as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishment of the proposed actions) and adds no additional airplanes to the effectivity listing. Revision 1 clarifies certain procedures described in the service bulletin. Accomplishment of the actions specified in Revision 1 of the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition described previously. Therefore, paragraph (a) of this final rule has been revised to reference Revision 1 of the service bulletin as the appropriate source of service information for the accomplishment of the requirements of that paragraph. In addition, a new “ Note 2 ” has been added to this AD (and other notes have been renumbered accordingly) to specify that replacement of clevis ends prior to the effective date of this AD in accordance with the original issue of the service bulletin is acceptable for compliance with paragraph (a) of this AD.

Operators should note that Revision 1 of the service bulletin deletes three airplanes from the effectivity listing. The intent of the service bulletin was accomplished prior to delivery of those airplanes. Therefore, the applicability statement of this final rule has been revised accordingly.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received.

One commenter states that it has no objection to the proposed rule.

One commenter states that it agrees with the proposed compliance time of four years. However, the commenter is concerned that the proposed replacement is intended to be accomplished during a scheduled maintenance visit, and, therefore, the replacement will not be accomplished on some airplanes for three or four years. The commenter also states that any change to the proposed time of compliance would impact service to the public. The commenter makes no specific request for a change to this AD.

The FAA acknowledges the commenter's point that the replacement required by this AD has the potential to impact service to the public. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the FAA considered not only the manufacturer's recommendation (as specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-25-0120, dated February 11, 1999), but also the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for timely accomplishment of the modification. In consideration of these items, the FAA has determined that four years represents an appropriate interval of time allowable wherein the modifications can be accomplished during scheduled maintenance intervals for the majority of affected operators, and an acceptable level of safety can be maintained. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter estimates that the replacement of clevis ends specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-25-0120 will require 44 work hours instead of the 20 work hours estimated in the service bulletin. (The cost estimate in the NPRM for accomplishment of the replacement on Model 777-200 series airplanes is 12 work hours, excluding the time to gain access and close up.) The FAA infers that the commenter is requesting that the cost estimate be increased in the final rule.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The number of work hours necessary to accomplish the required actions, specified as 12 in the cost impact information below, was provided to the FAA by the manufacturer based on the best data available to date. This number represents the “direct” costs of the specific actions required by this AD: the time necessary to perform only the actions actually required by this AD. The FAA recognizes that, in accomplishing the requirements of any AD, operators may incur “incidental” costs in addition to the “direct” costs. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions, however, typically does not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up; planning time; or time necessitated by other administrative actions. Because incidental costs may vary significantly from operator to operator, they are almost impossible to calculate. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

There are approximately 168 Model 777-200 and 16 Model 777-300 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet.

The FAA estimates that 41 Model 777-200 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 12 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required replacement of clevis ends, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $15,938 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $682,978, or $16,658 per airplane.

Currently, there are no Model 777-300 airplanes on the U.S. Register that will be affected by this AD. However, should an unmodified airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, it would take approximately 17 work hours per airplane to accomplish the actions required by this AD, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $18,457 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the replacement required by this AD on these airplanes is estimated to be $19,477 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect 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, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) 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 final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption “ ADDRESSES. ”

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Airbus Model A300 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on January 27, 2000 (65 FR 4386). That action proposed to require modification of wing center box angle fittings at frame 47.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the single comment received.

The commenter states that it is not affected by the proposal.

After careful review of the available data, including the comment noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

The FAA estimates that 38 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 430 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required modification, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $8,840 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,316,320, or $34,640 per airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect 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, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) 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 final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 727 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on June 25, 1999 (64 FR 34168). That action proposed to require repetitive structural inspections of certain aging airplanes, and repair, if necessary.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received.

The Air Transport Association (ATA) of America, on behalf of three of its members, indicates that these members generally support the proposal. One of those members states that it does not operate any Boeing Model 727-200 series airplanes, line numbers 1 through 1214; another member has no objections to the proposed rule; and another member has no objection to the intent of the proposed rule but proposes certain clarifications.

Two commenters state that a number of incorrect references are cited in the proposed AD. The commenters recommend changing references from “AD 94-05-04” to “AD 90-06-09” in the “Other Relevant Rulemaking” and “Differences Between Proposed Rule and Service Bulletin” sections of the proposed AD, the applicability of the proposed AD, and paragraph (d) of the proposed AD [cited as paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) in the final rule]. One of the commenters contends that Revision 3 of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-57-0127, dated August 24, 1989 (which is referenced in Boeing Document Number D6-54860), clearly references repetitive inspections at intervals of 14,000 flight cycles. However, the Boeing document only specifies an inspection in accordance with Note 2 of Revision 3 of the service bulletin, and Note 2 does not refer to the repetitive inspections. Another of the commenters contends that Revision 2 of the service bulletin, dated February 13, 1976, was cited in the Boeing document and was mandated by AD 94-07-08.

Although the “Other Relevant Rulemaking” and “Differences” sections are not included in the final rule, the FAA concurs that it is necessary to change all references from “AD 94-05-04” to “AD 90-06-09” because the proposed AD incorrectly referenced AD 94-05-04. However, with regard to the correct revision number of the service bulletin, the FAA points out that AD 94-07-08 specifies Revision 3 rather than Revision 2 of the service bulletin, and that Revision 2 of the service bulletin is relevant to AD 90-06-09. To clarify the applicability of the final rule, the FAA has changed the AD reference, and clarified that the actions are to be accomplished for certain airplanes on which the modification specified by either Revision 2 or Revision 3 of the service bulletin has not been accomplished. In addition, the AD references are changed in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of the final rule.

The commenter states that the compliance time in paragraph (a) of the proposed AD should be extended. That compliance time assumes that all Model 727 series airplanes have exceeded the initial inspection threshold, as it requires the initial inspection within 2,000 flight cycles [a phase-in (grace) period] after the effective date of the AD. The commenter points out that Note 2 in Part III of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-57-0127, Revision 3, specifies a threshold of 16,000 flight cycles and a phase-in period if an airplane has exceeded that threshold. The commenter has reviewed the active fleet of Model 727 series airplanes and has found that, at the present time, there are 36 airplanes that have accumulated less than 14,000 total flight cycles. The commenter also states that if the initial inspection has been accomplished in accordance with AD 94-07-08, that AD also requires repetitive inspection intervals of 14,000 total flight cycles. Therefore, the commenter recommends extending the compliance time in paragraph (a) of the proposed AD.

The FAA concurs that the compliance time should be extended, and that whether the initial inspection has or has not been accomplished in accordance with AD 94-07-08 should be considered. Therefore, paragraph (a) of the final rule has been revised to specify the inspection requirements for those airplanes on which the initial inspection has not been accomplished in accordance with AD 94-07-08, and a new paragraph (b) has been added to specify the inspection requirements for those airplanes on which the initial inspection has been accomplished in accordance with AD 94-07-08. [Paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of the proposed AD have been renumbered as paragraphs (c) and (d) in the final rule.]

One commenter states that although the proposed AD requires a “dye penetrant inspection,” Revision 3 of the Boeing service bulletin only specifies a “penetrant inspection,” and does not reference a Boeing process specification, Non-Destructive Test manual reference, or any other kind of reference as to the type of penetrant inspection ( e.g., dye or fluorescent) that should be performed.

The FAA acknowledges that clarification of the type of inspection is necessary. Paragraph (a)(1) of the proposed rule specifies a “dye penetrant inspection” in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 727-57-0127, Revision 3, and Boeing Standard Overhaul Practices Manual D6-51702, Chapter 20-20-02, Revision 79, dated March 1, 1999. Although the service bulletin specifies a “penetrant inspection,” Figure 1 of the Standard Overhaul Practices Manual specifies a “fluorescent dye penetrant inspection (Type I).” Based on the type of inspection included in the manual, the FAA has clarified the type of inspection specified in the preamble and paragraph (c) of the final rule.

One commenter states that operators have expressed concerns that another AD is being written to mandate the inspections required by Boeing Service Bulletin 727-57-0127 [Revision 3], when AD 94-07-08 currently mandates such inspections. However, the proposed AD does not state that it will supersede the inspection requirements of Service Bulletin 727-57-0127, as mandated by AD 94-07-08. Therefore, the commenter recommends adding a note to the proposed AD stating that “Upon incorporation of the requirements of this AD, the inspection requirements of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-57-0127 mandated by AD 94-07-08 may be deleted.”

The FAA acknowledges the concern expressed by the commenter that the proposed AD requires inspections currently required by paragraph (a) of AD 94-07-08. In response, the FAA has clarified in paragraph (g)(1) of the final rule that accomplishment of the inspections required by this AD constitutes terminating action for the inspections required by paragraph (a) of AD 94-07-08, as specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 727-57-0127, Revision 3.

One commenter states that, although the summary of the proposed AD states that the AD was prompted by reports of incidents involving fatigue cracking and corrosion found on older airplane models, Boeing Service Bulletin 727-57-0127 only addresses fatigue cracking and does not address corrosion. The FAA infers that the commenter suggests deleting the reference to corrosion in the summary of the proposed rule.

The FAA does not concur. Although the service bulletin does not include a reference to corrosion and only includes a reference to fatigue cracking, the FAA points out that the Working Group's reference to Boeing Document Number D6-54860, “Aging Airplane Service Bulletin Structural Modification Program—Model 727,” Revision C, dated December 11, 1989 (as cited in the Discussion paragraph of the proposed AD), was established to address problems associated with both fatigue cracking and corrosion. In light of this, the FAA considers that the reference to corrosion is appropriate, and no change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter recommends revising “Other Relevant Rulemaking” in the proposed AD to clarify that AD 94-07-08 inadvertently omitted the requirement to mandate repetitive inspections for certain wing ribs on airplanes in groups 4 and 5, because Section 4 of Boeing Document Number D6-54860 references Revision 2 of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-57-0127. The commenter adds that Revision 3 of the service bulletin specifies an additional rib inspection for airplanes in groups 4 and 5 only, and no additional requirements for airplanes in groups 1, 2, 3, and 6.

Although “Other Relevant Rulemaking” is not included in the final rule, the FAA acknowledges that AD 94-07-08 inadvertently omitted a requirement for the repetitive inspections. However, the FAA points out that the commenter was mistaken in stating that Boeing Document Number D6-54860, references Revision 3 (rather than Revision 2) of the service bulletin. In addition, Revision 3 of the service bulletin does include the additional rib inspection for airplanes in groups 4 and 5. Therefore, no change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter states that, in the “Initial Inspection” section of the NPRM, the reference documents for accomplishing the dye penetrant and high frequency eddy current inspections include a specific revision number for the service bulletin. The commenter suggests adding “or later revisions” so that when future revisions are released, there will not be any confusion as to which revision to use.

The FAA does not concur with the request to revise the AD to reference later revisions of the service bulletin, because it cannot approve the use of a document that does not yet exist. In addition, when a service bulletin is referenced in an AD, the use of the phrase, “or later FAA-approved revisions,” violates Office of the Federal Register regulations regarding approval of materials that are incorporated by reference. Therefore, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to specify a certain revision number for all service bulletins specified in the final rule. However, the FAA points out that operators may submit any requests to use a later service bulletin through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, as provided for by paragraph (h) of this AD.

One commenter recommends extending the inspection intervals in paragraph (b) of the proposed AD to give credit for the accomplishment of initial or previous inspections in accordance with AD 94-07-08, and basing the next required inspection interval on the date the previous inspection was accomplished.

The FAA does not concur that it is necessary to revise the inspection intervals required by paragraph (b) of the proposed AD [cited as paragraph (e) of the final rule] because paragraph (a) of the proposed AD [cited as paragraph (b) of the final rule] states that the initial inspection is required within 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, “unless accomplished within the last 12,000 flight cycles in accordance with AD 94-07-08.” Therefore, the proposed AD provides credit for a previous inspection that was accomplished within 12,000 flight cycles; as a result, the proposed AD allows operators to repeat the inspection within 14,000 flight cycles after the last inspection. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

The FAA has revised paragraph (c) of the proposed rule that requires repair in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 727-57-0127, Revision 3. That paragraph, renumbered as paragraph (f) in the final rule, adds that repair also may be accomplished in accordance with a method approved by the FAA; or in accordance with data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative who has been authorized by the FAA to make such findings.

After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

There are approximately 975 Model 727 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 538 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 300 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspections, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspections required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $9,684,000, or $18,000 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.

Should an operator elect to accomplish the optional terminating action rather than continue the repetitive inspections, it would take approximately 900 work hours per airplane to accomplish the modification, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $31,144 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this optional terminating action is estimated to be $85,144 per airplane.

The regulations adopted herein will 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 final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) 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 final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Dornier Model 328-100 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on June 11, 1999 (64 FR 31520). That action proposed to require repetitive tests of the flight idle backup system of the propeller control system; repetitive inspections to determine the level of wear of the pins and bushings of the cam followers on the power lever rods of the engine controls; and follow-on corrective actions, if necessary. That action also proposed to require eventual replacement of the power lever and condition lever rods of the engine controls with new, improved parts, which constitutes terminating action for the repetitive tests and inspections.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the single comment received.

The commenter, the manufacturer, requests that paragraph (a) of the proposed AD be revised. The commenter states that, by requiring FAA or Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA) approval if any discrepancy is discovered during the flight idle backup test required by paragraph (a), the AD would impose an undue hardship against operators of Dornier Model 328-100 series airplanes. The commenter suggests that paragraph (a) be revised to specify that if any discrepancy is detected, the inspection required by paragraph (b) should be performed prior to further flight. The commenter further suggests that, if Type C wear is found during that inspection, the power lever microswitches should be adjusted or calibrated; if Type A or B wear is found, the rod should be replaced per paragraph (f) of the AD, or the pin and bushing should be replaced as specified in paragraph C, section 6, of Dornier Alert Service Bulletin ASB 328-76-024, Revision 1, dated August 5, 1998 (which was cited as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishment of the inspections).

The FAA partially concurs. The FAA concurs that, if any discrepancy is found during the test required by paragraph (a) of the AD, accomplishment of the inspection required by paragraph (b) of the AD prior to further flight, with applicable corrective actions, constitutes an acceptable alternative to immediate repair in accordance with an FAA- or LBA-approved method. The FAA does not concur with the request to revise paragraph (a) to require such action solely, since both methods constitute acceptable corrective actions. To require only accomplishment of paragraph (b), and follow-on actions, as the commenter suggests, would also necessitate a reopening of the comment period, and thus further delay issuance of the final rule.

However, the FAA has determined that such an option may be incorporated into the AD as an alternative method of compliance to the repair required by paragraph (a). A new paragraph (a)(2) has been included in the final rule to specify such an option, with the provision that adjustment or calibration of the power lever microswitches must also be accomplished if Type C wear is found. Regarding findings of Type A or B wear, the FAA considers the existing follow-on corrective actions specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of the AD to be adequate [those actions are required depending on the type of wear found during the inspection required by paragraph (b) of the AD]. Additionally, since replacement of all rods with improved rods is already an acceptable terminating action for the requirements of the AD, as specified in paragraph (f) of the AD, operators may choose to accomplish such corrective action at an earlier time if desired. No change is made to the final rule in regard to findings of Type A or B wear.

After careful review of the available data, including the comment noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the change described previously. The FAA has determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

The FAA estimates that 50 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

It will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required test, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the test required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,000, or $60 per airplane, per test cycle.

It will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required inspection, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,000, or $60 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

It will take approximately 10 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required replacement, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will be provided by the manufacturer at no cost to the operators. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the replacement required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $30,000, or $600 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect 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, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) 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 final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES. ”

The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register on February 7, 2000 (65 FR 5763). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on June 15, 2000. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.

The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register on February 7, 2000 (65 FR 5764). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on June 15, 2000. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.

The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register on February 7, 2000 (65 FR 5766). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on June 15, 2000. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.

The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register on February 7, 2000 (65 FR 5770). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on June 15, 2000. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.

The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register on February 7, 2000 (65 FR 5765). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on June 15, 2000. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.

On August 9, 1999 (64 FR 43114), FDA, on its own initiative, proposed to reclassify the following devices from class I to class II: (1) Cardiopulmonary bypass accessory equipment, when intended to be used in the cardiopulmonary bypass circuit to support, adjoin, or connect components, or to aid in the setup of the extracorporeal line; (2) the goniometer device, which is an AC-powered device, when intended to evaluate joint function by measuring and recording ranges of motion, acceleration, or forces exerted by a joint; and (3) the electrode cable device, which is an electrode cable device composed of strands of insulated electrical conductors laid together around a central core and intended for medical purposes to connect an electrode from a patient to a diagnostic machine.

In addition to general controls, FDA identified two special controls that FDA believes are adequate to control the risks to health described for these devices: (1) On May 9, 1997, FDA issued a final rule establishing a performance standard for electrode lead wires and patient cables. The agency determined that the performance standard is needed to prevent electrical connections between patients and electrical power sources. In the preamble to the May 9, 1997, final rule establishing this standard, FDA identified cardiopulmonary bypass accessory equipment, the goniometer, and the electrode cable as devices that would be subject to this standard after they were reclassified into class II; and (2) based on the available information, FDA also identified a guidance document entitled “Guidance on the Performance Standard for Electrode Lead Wires and Patient Cables.” The guidance provides information on electrocution hazards posed by unprotected patient electrical connectors. The guidance is intended to help affected parties understand the steps needed to achieve compliance with the performance standard for electrode lead wires and patient cables.

Since May 11, 1998, electrode lead wires or patient cables have been required to comply with the ECG Cables and Lead Wires, ANSI/AAMI EC 53-1995 standard if they are intended for use with any of the following devices:

1. Breathing frequency monitors,

2. Ventilatory effort monitors (Apnea detectors),

3. Electrocardiographs (ECG's),

4. Radio frequency physiological signal transmitters and receivers,

5. Cardiac monitors,

6. Electrocardiograph electrodes (including pre-wired ECG electrodes),

7. Patient transducer and electrode cables (including connectors),

8. Medical magnetic tape recorders (e.g. Holter monitors),

9. Arrhythmia detectors and alarms,

10. Telephone electrocardiograph transmitters and receivers.

Manufacturers and users had an additional 2 years to prepare for the second phase of implementation of the standard. Beginning on May 9, 2000, any electrode lead wire or patient cable lead intended for use with any medical device must comply with the standard. The performance standard incorporates the specific requirements of international standard, IEC-60601, clause 56.3(c), which requires leads to be constructed in such a manner as to preclude patient contact with hazardous voltages or, for certain devices, contact with electrical ground. Design changes and labeling changes need to be considered by manufacturers and importers of these devices. Adapters can be used to convert devices already in the marketplace so they can accept electrode wires and patient cables that comply with the new performance standard.

FDA invited interested persons to submit written comments on the proposed rule. FDA received one comment. The comment objected that the rule should not apply to battery-powered goniometers.

FDA agrees in part. Some battery-powered goniometers have cables and leads that connect them to displays and other devices. Because devices that use electrode lead wires and patient cables present the risk of electrocution to the patient, FDA believes that these devices should be in class II and subject to the standard. Goniometers that do not use electrode lead wires and patient cables will remain in class I and will be exempt from premarket notification. FDA is also revising the identification section in § 888.1500 (21 CFR 888.1500). Presently, it refers only to AC-powered devices. Since publication of that proposed rule, FDA has found several battery-powered goniometers to be substantially equivalent to the goniometer identified in § 888.1500(a). FDA is revising this section to include battery-powered devices.

On November 21, 1997, the President signed into law the FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA) (Public Law 105-115). Section 206 of FDAMA, in part, added a new section 510(m) to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360(m). Section 510(m)(1) of the act requires FDA, within 60 days after enactment of FDAMA, to publish in the Federal Register a list of each type of class II device that does not require a report under section 510(k) of the act to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Section 510(m) of the act further provides that a 510(k) will no longer be required for these devices upon the date of publication of the list in the Federal Register . FDA published that list in the Federal Register of January 21, 1998 (63 FR 3142). Section 510(m)(2) of the act provides that 1 day after the date of publication of the list under section 510(m)(1) of the act, FDA may exempt a device on its own initiative or upon petition of an interested person, if FDA determines that a 510(k) is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. FDA has determined that, for the devices proposed for class II in this rule, the special controls along with general controls other than premarket notification will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of these devices. Therefore, FDA is exempting these devices from the premarket notification requirements subject to the applicable limitations on exemptions.

FDAMA also added a new section 510(l) to the act which provides that a class I device is exempt from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the act, unless the device is intended for a use which is of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health or it presents a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury. FDA refers to the devices that meet these criteria as “reserved.” In the Federal Register of February 2, 1998 (63 FR 5387), FDA published a list of devices it considered reserved and that require premarket notification and a list of devices it believed met the exemption criteria in FDAMA. FDA invited comments on the February 2, 1998, notice. In the Federal Register of November 12, 1998 (63 FR 63222), after reviewing the comments submitted on the February 2, 1998, Federal Register notice, FDA proposed to designate which devices require premarket notification, and which are exempt, subject to limitations, under notice and comment rulemaking proceedings under new section 510(l) of the act. One comment on the proposed rule stated that, for cardiopulmonary bypass accessory equipment, the “reserved” designation should be limited to accessory equipment that involves an electrical connection to the patient. FDA agrees with this comment and, on January 14, 2000 (65 FR 2296), FDA issued a final rule on exemptions from premarket notification to adopt this comment. In this rule, FDA stated that cardiopulmonary bypass accessory equipment that does not involve electrical connection to the patient is a class I device and is exempt from the premarket notification requirements.

The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

FDA has examined the impacts of the rule under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as amended by subtitle D of the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121)), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency believes that this rule is consistent with the regulatory philosophy and principles identified in the Executive Order. In addition, the rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by the Executive Order and so is not subject to review under the Executive Order.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Based on the May 9, 1997 (62 FR 25477), Federal Register , a final rule was issued establishing a performance standard for electrode lead wires and patient cables, which included and applied to the cardiopulmonary bypass accessory equipment that involves an electrical connection to the patient, the goniometer, and the electrode cable. FDA's analysis determined that the imposition of the performance standard would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This reclassification will have no economic effect other than the imposition of this standard. In addition, the rule will not impose costs of $100 million or more on either the private sector or State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, and therefore a summary statement or analysis under section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is not required.

FDA has determined that this rule contains no collections of information. Therefore, clearance from the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us” or “our” are used, we mean EPA. Also, whenever we refer to “Central Soya”, we mean Central Soya Company, Incorporated, at 1102 West 18th Street in Marion County, Indianapolis, Indiana.

EPA is approving a requested revision to Indiana SIP rule 326 IAC 6-1-12 for Central Soya, as submitted by Indiana to EPA with a letter dated February 3, 1999. The rule addresses particulate matter concentration and annual emission limits for a number of sources at Central Soya's Marion County, Indianapolis, Indiana facility. Indiana submitted additional technical support information on February 23, 1999. The revision reflects the elimination of old processes and the addition of new operations at the facility. We are approving mass rate limits reflected in both an annual rate, which represents a cap on the total emissions for that source, and a concentration limit in grains per dry standard cubic feet (grains/dscf).

This revision provides for the reduction in emissions of particulate matter from the sources which are closed down, and an increase in emissions for additional sources. Particulate emissions should change from a total of 71.22 tons per year, the previously approved emission level, to 14.81 tons per year. This represents a net emissions decrease of approximately 56 tons of PM per year.

Prior to this SIP revision request, Central Soya had been subject to particulate matter emission limits for a boiler and a number of other sources and operations under 326 IAC 6-1-12(a). Those limits, as noted in the record of public hearing of the Air Pollution Control Board, are as follows:

Central Soya asked the State to amend 326 IAC 6-1-12 to eliminate a number of sources and add several new sources. Central Soya has reported that the following sources (identified by point input I.D.) are no longer in operation: (01) Vogt Boiler; (02) Toasting Mill Feed; (03) Dry Soybean Mill; (04) Soybean Meal Cooler; (05) Pellet Cooler South; (06) Feed Pellet Cooler North; (08) Bean Bowl Storage; (09) Conveyor System Aspiration; and (10) Truck Pit. Central Soya has asked the State to delete these sources from the State rule.

Central Soya also requested that EPA approve the revised emission limits applicable to (09A) Elevator Gallery Belt Trippers; (09B) Elevator Gallery Belt Loaders (East and West); and (09C) Elevator Grain Dryer Conveying Legs. Central Soya also requested that the State add two other sources to the inventory: (10A) Elevator #1 Truck and Rail Receiving System and Basement, and (10B) Elevator #2 Truck and Rail Receiving System. The Indiana Air Pollution Control Board approved these changes on November 1, 1998.

The general criteria used by EPA to evaluate such emissions trades, or “bubbles,” under the Clean Air Act are set out in the EPA's Emissions Trading Policy Statement (ETPS) (see 51 FR 43814, December 4, 1986). The ETPS allows a State to forego a modeling analysis in those trades where the “applicable net baseline emissions do not increase and in which the sum of the emissions increases, looking only at the increasing sources, totals less than 25 tons per year of particulate matter.” EPA considers that such trades will have, at most, a “de minimis” impact on local air quality. 51 FR 43844.

In the case of Central Soya, Indiana also elected to perform a “Level II” modeling analysis under the ETPS. A Level II analysis must include emissions from the sources involved in the trade, and must demonstrate that the air quality impact of the trade does not exceed set significance levels. For PM, the significance levels are 10 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m  3 ) for any 24-hour period, and 5 μg/m  3 for any annual period.

The modeling analysis submitted by the IDEM in support of the requested Central Soya SIP revision is consistent with a Level II analysis. The analysis shows that the SIP revision request will not cause or contribute to any exceedances of the PM NAAQS. The maximum modeled PM air quality impacts were 1.8 μg/m  3 in 24-hours, and 0.0 μg/m  3 on an annual basis. Therefore, IDEM has demonstrated that this SIP revision will not have a significant impact on air quality.

This revision reduces the emissions of particulate matter from selected sources in the Central Soya facility, as well as the facility as a whole. The reductions come about because of the change in operations at the plant. The State reports that the facility underwent a change from a processing plant to exclusively a storage facility. Citizens of Marion County living near the facility will benefit from the reductions because the net overall change should be a positive impact on air quality.

The State published a public notice on November 3, 1997, and December 23, 1997, to inform citizens that the revised plan was available for review and public comment. Indiana held two Air Pollution Control Board meetings on the Central Soya rule changes on December 3, 1997 and February 4, 1998. The State did not receive any adverse comment regarding these changes.

Previous to this SIP revision request, Central Soya had been subject to particulate matter emission limits for a boiler and a number of other sources and operations under 326 IAC 6-1-12(a). These approved limits are noted in the record of public hearing of the Air Pollution Control Board.

Indiana has amended rule 326 IAC 6-1-12(a) to eliminate a number of sources, resulting in a reduction of annual particulate matter emissions from Central Soya. Indiana has added five sources to the rule. These are: Elevator Gallery Belt Trippers; Elevator Gallery Belt Loaders (East and West); Elevator Grain Dryer Conveying Legs; Elevator #1 Truck and Rail Receiving System and Basement; and Elevator #2 Truck and Rail Receiving System. The State-approved emission limits for the five new sources are listed in the following table:

The State's technical support document included a table of the changes in emissions at the Central Soya facility for the sources listed. These changes, as published in the November 1, 1998 Indiana Register, Volume 22, Number 2 (page 417), indicate that the decreases in PM emissions should total 71.22 tons per year and the increases should total 14.81 tons per year. This represents a net decrease in emissions of 56.41 tons per year.

The State also performed air emissions ambient modeling. The modeling shows that impacts are below the Level II significant impact levels of 10.0 μg/m 3 for the 24-hour and 5.0 μg/m 3 for the annual time averaged period.

The revision to this SIP is approvable because the changes requested by the State meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's bubble policy, as noted above. Also, the emissions increases should have, at most, a “de minimis” impact on air quality as a result of the concurrent emissions reductions.

The particulate matter air quality standard and public health should be protected by this SIP revision. The Clean Air Act and applicable policy permit changes to the State's implementation plan without the need for a detailed technical review under certain carefully circumscribed situations. These include emission changes in which there is a net reduction in emissions. This approach should ensure that ambient air quality standards will be attained and maintained, and public health protected. The request being approved today results in a net reduction in particulate matter emissions.

This revision will become Federally enforceable on the effective date of this approval.

In this rulemaking action, EPA approves the Central Soya Company, Incorporated SIP submission as a revision to the Indiana SIP. The revision eliminates a total of nine source operations and adds five new operations. It has the overall effect of reducing the emissions of particulate matter from the facility. The Indiana Air Pollution Control Board approved the revision and published it in the Indiana Register, Volume 22, Number 2, page 417, dated November 1, 1998. EPA is publishing this direct final approval without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision should adverse written comments be filed. This action will be effective June 12, 2000, without further notice unless EPA receives relevant adverse written comment by May 11, 2000. Should the Agency receive such comments, it will publish a final rule informing the public that this direct final action will not take effect. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If no comments are received, the public is advised that this action will be effective on June 12, 2000.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments “to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.”

Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

This rule will 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.

This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. , as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: rules of particular applicability; rules relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability.

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 12, 2000. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

This section is organized as follows:

EPA is approving Massachusetts' revised 310 CMR 7.24(8) “Marine Volatile Organic Liquid Transfer” and incorporating this rule into the Massachusetts SIP. EPA is also approving definitions in 310 CMR 7.00 which are associated with the marine vessel rule. EPA is also approving Massachusetts' revised 310 CMR 7.00 definition of “volatile organic compound” and an amendment to Massachusetts’ 310 CMR 7.25 “Best Available Controls for Consumer and Commercial Products” and incorporating these regulations into the Massachusetts SIP.

Section 183(f) of the CAA requires EPA to promulgate reasonably available control technology (RACT) standards to reduce VOC emissions from the loading and unloading of tank vessels. Furthermore, on November 12, 1993 (58 FR 60021), marine vessels were added to the list of those categories for which EPA will promulgate a maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard. On September 19, 1995 (60 FR 48388), EPA promulgated both RACT and MACT standards for marine tank vessels. Section 183(f)(4) of the CAA states that after EPA promulgates such standards, no State may adopt, or attempt to enforce, less stringent standards for tank vessels subject to EPA's regulation.

In addition, section 182(b)(1) of the amended CAA requires States with ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above to develop reasonable further progress plans to reduce VOC emissions by 15 percent within these areas by 1996 when compared to 1990 baseline VOC emission levels. Also, section 182(b)(2)(C) of the CAA requires that RACT be implemented for all major VOC sources by May 31, 1995. Pursuant to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was designated as serious nonattainment for ozone. 1

Therefore, in Massachusetts, sources with the potential to emit greater than 50 tpy are considered major VOC sources. Furthermore, Massachusetts is located in the Northeast Ozone Transport Region (OTR). The entire Commonwealth is, therefore, subject to section 184(b) of the amended CAA. Section 184(b) requires that RACT be implemented for all major VOC sources (defined as 50 tons per year for sources in the OTR).

In response to the above CAA requirements, Massachusetts adopted 310 CMR 7.24(8) to control VOC emissions from marine vessel transfer operations. On August 27, 1996 (61 FR 43973), EPA issued a conditional approval of Massachusetts' 310 CMR 7.24(8) marine vessel rule. EPA's conditional approval cited two outstanding issues associated with Massachusetts' regulation.

EPA's conditional approval of Massachusetts' marine vessel rule cited the following two outstanding issues associated with this regulation: (1) a lack of monitoring requirements; and (2) emission limits for ballasting operations.

Massachusetts' marine vessel rule requires that, upon initial startup of the air pollution control equipment, the owner or operator of a marine terminal conduct an initial performance test in order to demonstrate compliance. However, the initially adopted version of the rule did not require the facility to demonstrate continued compliance as is generally required of VOC sources. Specifically, as noted in EPA's conditional approval, the regulation should require that certain parameters be monitored continuously while marine vessel loading or ballasting operations are occurring and that records be kept of any periods of operation during which the previously established parameter boundaries are exceeded. 2

The marine vessel rule that Massachusetts initially adopted applies to the loading of an organic liquid and to ballasting operations. However, the emissions limitations of the rule do not apply to ballasting operations. EPA's conditional approval noted that, although EPA's national marine vessel rule does not apply to ballasting operations, the absence of emission limitations for ballasting operations in Massachusetts' rule is inconsistent with the VOC emission reductions claimed in Massachusetts' reasonable further progress (RFP) plan for the Boston-Worcester-Lawrence ozone nonattainment area. Specifically, Massachusetts 1990 base year inventory shows that uncontrolled marine vessel transfer operations result in 3.2 tons of VOC per summer day (tpsd), which includes 2.8 tpsd from ballasting and 0.4 tpsd from loading operations. Massachusetts' initial marine vessel rule SIP submittal states that ballasting emissions will be reduced by 2.1 tpsd. This statement assumes that ballasting operations are subject to a 95 percent control efficiency requirement (i.e., 0.95 control efficiency × 0.8 rule effectiveness × 2.8 tpsd uncontrolled = 2.1 tpsd reduction). Therefore, EPA's conditional approval stated that Massachusetts' marine vessel rule should require that ballasting operations be subject to the emission limitations stated in section 7.24(8)(c)(1)(B) of the rule.

On October 17, 1997, Massachusetts submitted a SIP revision containing a revised version of its marine vessel rule 310 CMR 7.24(8). Massachusetts' revised marine vessel rule adequately addresses the two issues outlined in EPA's conditional approval.

In Massachusetts' revised rule, a new provision has been added which requires emission control equipment to be monitored in accordance with the procedures specified in EPA's national marine vessel rule, specifically sections 63.564(e) through (j) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart Y. Massachusetts has, therefore, adequately addressed the issue of monitoring requirements.

The revised rule also includes a reference to the vapor-tightness pressure test procedures in EPA's national rule, specifically section 63.565(c)(1) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart Y. Previously, Massachusetts' rule required that these tests be “conducted in accordance with procedures specified by the DEP and EPA.”

In Massachusetts' revised rule, the requirement for marine terminal owners to install and operate equipment to control VOC emissions which result solely from ballasting operations has been rescinded. However, the revised rule states that, if a system is in place to control emissions from gasoline loading operations, then that system must also be used to control ballasting emissions. In such a case, ballasting emissions are subject to the emission limits of the rule.

Massachusetts' revision is acceptable since ballasting emissions in Massachusetts are now known to be less significant than originally estimated. As previously stated, Massachusetts had initially calculated uncontrolled ballasting emissions to be 2.8 tpsd. However, as reported in Massachusetts public hearing background document, industry data has subsequently shown that 1994 uncontrolled ballasting emissions were only 0.4 tpsd. Massachusetts plans to adjust future emissions inventory estimates of ballasting emissions to reflect this lower level of emissions.

In addition, as previously mentioned, EPA's national marine vessel rule does not apply to ballasting operations. In promulgating this rule, EPA noted that the U.S. Coast Guard has regulations which address ballasting and that “the relatively low amount of actual emissions associated with ballasting does not justify dual regulation of ballasting.”

On July 30, 1996, Massachusetts submitted a SIP revision containing revisions to its 310 CMR 7.00 definition of the term “volatile organic compound.” In the revised definition, acetone has been added to the list of compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC because of their negligible photochemical reactivity. The revised definition also clarifies that the previously adopted exemption for volatile methyl siloxanes is specifically for “cyclic, branched, or linear, completely methylated siloxanes.” EPA promulgated an exemption for acetone in its definition of VOC on June 16, 1995 (60 FR 31633) and an exemption for cyclic, branched, or linear, completely methylated siloxanes on October 5, 1994 (59 FR 50693).

Massachusetts' revised VOC definition is consistent with EPA's VOC definition codified at 40 CFR 51.100(s), with the exception of more recent revisions to EPA's definition which were promulgated subsequent to Massachusetts' July 30, 1996 SIP submittal. EPA promulgated these additional revisions on October 8, 1996 (61 FR 52848), August 25, 1997 (62 FR 44900), and April 9, 1998 (63 FR 17331). These revisions add more compounds to the list of those exempted from the definition of VOC because of their negligible photochemical reactivity. Massachusetts' VOC definition also does not include an exemption for perchloroethylene which was promulgated by EPA on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4588). As stated in EPA's exemption rulemakings, States are not obligated to exclude from control as a VOC those compounds that EPA has found to be negligibly reactive. However, EPA will no longer enforce measures controlling the exempted compounds as part of a federally-approved SIP. EPA's exemption rulemakings also state that a State may not take credit for controlling the EPA-exempted compounds in its ozone control strategy. Nor may reductions of EPA-exempted compounds be used as emission reduction credits or offsets to be traded against the emission of non-exempt compounds. Massachusetts is not taking credit for reductions of EPA-exempted compounds in its rate of progress plans and does not allow trading of exempt for non-exempt emissions.

On July 30, 1996, Massachusetts submitted revisions to its 310 CMR 7.25 “Best Available Controls for Consumer and Commercial Products.” In this rule, minor clarifications were made to the definition of the term “waterproofing sealer.” The revised definition is consistent with EPA's national rule codified at 40 CFR part 59, subpart D “National VOC Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings.”

EPA is approving Massachusetts' revised marine vessel rule because the Commonwealth has successfully addressed the issues outlined in EPA's earlier conditional approval. EPA is also approving Massachusetts revised VOC definition and clarifications to its consumer product rule because these revisions are consistent with current EPA guidance. Further information on Massachusetts' October 17, 1997 and July 30, 1996 SIP submittals and EPA's evaluation of these submittals can be found in a memorandum dated September 7, 1999 entitled “Technical Support Document—Massachusetts—Revised VOC Rules.” Copies of this document are available, upon request, from the EPA Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This action will be effective June 12, 2000 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by May 11, 2000.

If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on June 12, 2000 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any State Implementation Plan. Each request for revision to the State Implementation Plan shall be considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

EPA is approving Massachusetts' revised 310 CMR 7.24(8) “Marine Volatile Organic Liquid Transfer” and incorporating this rule into the Massachusetts SIP. EPA is also approving the following definitions in 310 CMR 7.00 which are associated with the marine vessel rule: “combustion device,” “leak,” “leaking component,” “lightering or lightering operation,” “loading event,” “marine tank vessel,” “marine terminal,” “marine vessel,” “organic liquid,” and “recovery device.” EPA is also approving Massachusetts’ revised 310 CMR 7.00 definition of “volatile organic compound” and an amendment to Massachusetts’ 310 CMR 7.25 “Best Available Controls for Consumer and Commercial Products” and incorporating these regulations into the Massachusetts SIP.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). For the same reason, this rule also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 12, 2000. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) Interested parties should comment in response to the proposed rule rather than petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises after the comment period allowed for in the proposal.

Section 612 of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to develop a program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA refers to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are:

• Rulemaking —Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (hydrochlorofluorocarbon) substance with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment, and (2) is currently or potentially available.

• Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes —Section 612(c) also requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes unacceptable for specific uses. EPA must publish a corresponding list of acceptable alternatives for specific uses.

• Petition Process —Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to add a substance to or delete a substance from the lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition, EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional 6 months.

• 90-Day Notification —Section 612(e) requires EPA to require any person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance to notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant new uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also provide the Agency with the producer's unpublished health and safety studies on such substitutes.

• Outreach —Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying and developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial applications.

• Clearinghouse —Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances.

On March 18, 1994, EPA published rulemaking (59 FR 13044) which described the process for administering the SNAP program and issued EPA's first acceptability lists for substitutes in the major industrial use sectors. These sectors include: refrigeration and air conditioning; foam blowing; solvents cleaning; fire suppression and explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors compose the principal industrial sectors that historically consumed the largest volumes of ozone-depleting compounds.

As described in this original rule for the SNAP program, EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are required to list alternatives as acceptable with no limitations. Such listings do not impose any sanction, nor do they remove any prior license to use a substance. Consequently, by this notice EPA is adding substances to the list of acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on new listings.

EPA does, however, believe that notice-and-comment rulemaking is required to place any substance on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list a substance as acceptable only under certain conditions, to list substances as acceptable only for certain uses, or to remove a substance from either the list of prohibited or acceptable substitutes. Updates to these lists are published as separate notices of rulemaking in the Federal Register .

The Agency defines a “substitute” as any chemical, product substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or new, intended for use as a replacement for a class I or class II substance. Anyone who produces a substitute must provide the Agency with health and safety studies on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. This requirement applies to substitute manufacturers, but may include importers, formulators or end-users, when they are responsible for introducing a substitute into commerce.

A complete chronology of SNAP decisions and the appropriate Federal Register citations can be found at EPA's Ozone Depletion World Wide Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/chron.html. This information is also available from the Air Docket (see ADDRESSES section above for contact information).

This section presents EPA's most recent acceptable listing decisions for substitutes in the refrigeration and foams sectors. For copies of the full list of SNAP decisions in all industrial sectors, contact the EPA Stratospheric Protection Hotline at (800) 296-1996.

The sections below presents a detailed discussion of the substitute listing. The table summarizing today's listing decisions is in Appendix A. The comments contained in the table in Appendix A provide additional information, but are not legally binding under section 612 of the Clean Air Act. Thus, adherence to recommendations in the comments section of the table is not mandatory for use of a substitute. In addition, the comments should not be considered comprehensive with respect to other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute. However, EPA strongly encourages users of acceptable substitutes to apply all comments to their use of these substitutes. In many instances, the comments simply refer to standardized operating practices that have already been identified in existing industry and/or building-code standards. Thus, many of the comments, if adopted, would not require significant changes in existing operating practices for the affected industry.

(a) Furan (C 4 F 8 O). Furan is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-114 in retrofits of existing uranium isotope separation processing equipment . Furan, a perfluorocarbon (PFC), does not contribute to stratospheric ozone depletion. The environmental characteristics of concern for this compound are its extremely high global warming potential and long atmospheric lifetime. Long atmospheric lifetimes make the warming effects of PFCs essentially irreversible. As a result, PFCs are included in the Climate Change Action Plan, which broadly instructs EPA to use section 612 of the CAA, as well as voluntary programs, to control emissions.

Despite these concerns, EPA has listed several PFCs as acceptable replacements for CFC-114 in uranium isotope separation processing. PFCs have physical and thermodynamic properties that make them the only viable alternatives to CFC-114 in this end-use that have been identified as of this time. PFCs offer high dielectric resistance, noncorrosivity, thermal stability, materials compatibility, chemical inertness, low toxicity, and nonflammability.

In this end-use, Furan may offer some advantages over other PFCs currently listed as acceptable. The most significant advantage may be that its vapor pressure is lower which results in lower leak rates and a reduced likelihood that new leaks will be created in the system. Another distinction between Furan and other alternatives examined relates to the relatively low molecular weight of the compound. The low molecular weight relative to the material being processed makes it easy to separate Furan from the process stream.

EPA is listing Furan as acceptable in retrofit and existing uranium isotope separation system designs only. For new equipment designs in this end-use, EPA believes other alternatives may exist or may be developed to meet the needs of newly designed systems. Users of Furan should note that if other alternatives become available, EPA may determine to list Furan as unacceptable due to the availability of other suitable substitutes. If EPA took such action, EPA could also consider whether to grandfather existing uses. EPA's 1994 SNAP rulemaking specifies the criteria EPA would use in making a decision to grandfather existing uses (59 FR 13057; March 18, 1994).

EPA urges industry to continue to search for other long-term alternatives for this end-use that do not have high GWPs and long atmospheric lifetimes. In cases where users must use PFCs, they should make every effort to minimize emissions. Users are also strongly encouraged to recover, recycle, and/or destroy these fluids during servicing and after the end of the equipment's useful life.

(a) Saturated Light Hydrocarbons C3-C6. Saturated Light Hydrocarbons C3-C6 are acceptable as a substitute for HCFC-141b in all foam end-uses, except as a HCFC replacement in spray foam applications. (Spray foam applications fall under the Rigid Polyurethane Spray and Commercial Refrigeration, and Sandwich Panels end-use.). Today's action does not affect previous decisions made by EPA to list specific hydrocarbon blowing agents as acceptable in spray foam. The acceptability of hydrocarbons as HCFC-141b replacements in spray foam applications will be determined on a product-by-product basis until standard industry practices/training become more established . C3-C6 saturated light hydrocarbons are already acceptable substitutes for CFC-11 in all foam end-uses, and for HCFC-141b in some foam end-uses (rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated boardstock, rigid polyurethane appliance, and polyurethane integral skin). Today's action expands the acceptable applications for C3-C6 saturated light hydrocarbons as substitutes for HCFCs in the following applications/end-uses: rigid polyurethane commercial refrigeration and sandwich panels, rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams, polystyrene extruded insulation boardstock and billet, phenolic insulation board and bunstock, and polyolefin. Hydrocarbon blowing agents have no ozone depletion potential, low global warming potentials, and are low in toxicity. However, these agents are flammable and should be handled with proper precautions.

The flammability of hydrocarbon blowing agents are of particular concern in spray foam applications where a controlled factory environment is not possible. The potential for explosion or fire highlights the need for safety training. While training can not provide an absolute guarantee of safety, EPA believes that a comprehensive training program, if implemented properly, can adequately control risks associated with use of potentially flammable hydrocarbon-blown spray foam systems.

In December 1999, EPA listed Exxsol Blowing Agents, a specific hydrocarbon pentane blend, as acceptable in all foam end-uses (64 FR 68039) including spray foam. Draft training materials for spray foam applications were provided to EPA and are available through the Air Docket (Docket A-91-42, Category IX-B, Background Documents for Notice 11). EPA may list other hydrocarbon blowing agents as acceptable for spray foam applications if companies wishing to distribute or use hydrocarbons in spray foam applications establish safety training programs. Interested parties should contact EPA.

Contact the Stratospheric Protection Hotline at (800) 296-1996, Monday-Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (EST). For more information on the Agency's process for administering the SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the SNAP final rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044). Notices and rulemakings under the SNAP program, as well as all EPA publications on protection of stratospheric ozone, are available from EPA's Ozone Depletion World Wide Web site at “http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/” and from the Stratospheric Protection Hotline whose number is listed above.

In FR Doc. 99-28367 of November 2, 1999, (64 FR 59380), there were a number of technical errors. The errors relate to the omission of language discussing payment for pulse oximetry, temperature gradient studies and venous pressure determinations and the removal of the x-ray requirement before chiropractic manipulation; acceptance of the RUC recommendations for work relative value units (RVUs); RUC recommendations for CPT codes 17276 and 95165; a comment on codes in the “zero work” pool; discussion of CPT code 61862 and the correct billing procedures; and regulations text definitions concerning the coverage of prostate screening. Additionally there are various revisions to Addenda B and C.

The provisions in this correction notice are effective as if they had been included in the document published in the Federal Register on November 2, 1999, that is, January 1, 2000.

1. On page 39626 of the July 22, 1999 proposed rule, we discussed revising the work RVUs for certain pediatric surgical services to reflect more appropriate data. We inadvertently omitted these work RVU changes from Addendum B of the November 2, 1999 final rule. Entries on the pages listed below are corrected as follows: Page 59451 for CPT code 21740; page 59476 for CPT codes 38550 and 38555; page 59477 for CPT code 39503; page 59479 for CPT codes 42810 and 42815; page 59480 for CPT codes 43305, 43310, 43312, and 43831; page 59482 for CPT codes 45120 and 45121; page 59483 for CPT codes 46715, 46716, 46730, 46735, 46740, and 46751; page 59484 for CPT codes 47700 and 47701; page 59485 for CPT codes 49215, 49495, 49580, 49600, 49605, and 49606; page 59488 for CPT code 51940; and page 59495 for CPT code 60280. These corrections are reflected in correction number 8 to follow.

2. On page 59421 of the November 2, 1999 final rule, we assigned 5.85 work RVUs to CPT code 61885. We inadvertently omitted this value from Addenda B and C. Entries on the pages listed below are corrected as follows: Page 59497 and page 59582 for CPT code 61885. These corrections are reflected in correction number 9 to follow.

3. In Addendum B, we assigned incorrect status indicators for the following CPT codes: Page 59553 for CPT codes 94760 and 94761; and page 59578 for HCFA Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes Q0183, Q0184, Q0185, Q0186, Q1001, Q1002, Q1003, Q1004, and Q1005. These corrections are reflected in correction number 10 to follow.

4. On page 39630 of the July 22, 1999 proposed rule, we discussed accepting the RUC work RVU recommendations for five CPT codes that were carrier priced for 1999. The status of these codes would also change from Carrier Priced (C) to Active (A) in the final rule. We inadvertently omitted the work RVUs, status indicator, and correct global indicator changes from Addendum B of the final rule. Entries on the pages listed below are corrected as follows: Page 59473 for CPT code 35500; page 59475 for CPT code 36823; page 59476 for CPT code 38792; page 59495 for CPT 60650 (renumbered from CPT code 56321 for which we accepted the RUC recommendation); page 59476 for CPT code 38120 (renumbered from CPT code 56345 for which we accepted the RUC recommendation); and page 59481 for CPT code 44201 (renumbered from CPT code 56347 for which we accepted the RUC recommendation). In addition, we failed to reflect the practice expense values assigned to these codes. These corrections are reflected in correction 11 to follow.

5. In Addendum B, we inadvertently published incorrect global periods for CPT codes 33968, 47560, 62263, 96570 and 96571. Entries on pages listed below are corrected as follows: Pages 59472 and 59582 for CPT code 33968; page 59484 for CPT code 47560; pages 59497 and 59582 for CPT code 62263; and pages 59556 and 59583 for CPT codes 96570 and 96571. These corrections are reflected in correction number 12 to follow.

6. On page 39629 of the July 22, 1999 proposed rule, we proposed changing ventricular assist device insertions, CPT codes 33975 and 33976, to an XXX global and reducing the work RVUs accordingly. In the November 2, 1999 final rule, in Addendum B, we changed the global periods to XXX but inadvertently failed to reduce the work RVUs as stated in the proposed rule. Entries on the page listed below are corrected as follows: Page 59472 for CPT codes 33975 and 33976. In addition, we failed to show the adjustments to the CPEP data made to accommodate the changing global periods. These corrections are reflected in correction number 13 to follow.

7. In Addendum B, we inadvertently assigned incorrect practice expense and malpractice RVUs to HCPCS codes G0102, G0104, G0105, and incorrect malpractice relative value units for CPT codes 59000 through 59899. Entries on the pages listed below are corrected as follows: Page 59571 for HCPCS codes G0102, G0104, and G0105; pages 59494 and 59495 for CPT codes 59000 through 59899. These corrections are reflected in correction number 14 to follow.

8. On pages 59448 and 59582 of Addendum B, we assigned an incorrect procedure status and global period to CPT code 20979. Entries on pages listed below are corrected as follows: Pages 59448 and 59582 for CPT code 20979. These corrections are reflected in correction number 15 to follow.

9. In Addendum B, we inadvertently assigned incorrect practice expense RVUs for HCPCS codes G0106, G0106-26, G0106-TC, G0120, G0120-26, G0120-TC, G0170, G0171 and CPT code 45378-53. Entries on pages listed below are corrected as follows: Page 59571 for HCPCS codes G0106, G0106-26, G0106-TC, G0120, G0120-26 and G0120-TC; page 59572 and page 59583 for G0170 and G0171; and page 59482 for CPT 45378-53. These corrections are reflected in correction number 16 to follow.

10. We incorrectly denoted that CPT code 40814 was not applicable in a non-facility setting. On page 59477 of Addendum B, the applicable practice expense values are included for the nonfacility setting for CPT code 40814. These corrections are reflected in correction number 17 to follow.

11. In Addendum B, we assigned incorrect practice expense and/or malpractice RVUs for HCPCS codes G0163, G0163-26, G0163-TC, G0164, G0164-26, G0164-TC, G0165, G0165-26, and G0165-TC. Entries on the pages listed below are corrected as follows: Page 59571 for HCPCS codes G0163, G0163-26, and G0163-TC and page 59572 for G0164, G0164-26, G0164-TC, G0165, G0165-26 and G0165-TC. These corrections are reflected in correction number 18 to follow.

In FR Doc. 99-28367 of November 2, 1999, make the following corrections:

1. On page 59395, second column, after the sixth full paragraph, add the following:

2. On page 59398, first column, after the last paragraph insert the following:

3. On page 59406, in the last line of column two, insert the words “, in Table 7,” between the words “95956” and “should”.

4. On page 59413, column three, after line 7, add the following:

5. On page 59418, in the third column, line 6 from the top, replace “69” with “85”, and line 9, replace “31” with “15”.

The Federal Communications Commission published a report and order and final rule in the Federal Register of January 18, 2000 (65 FR 2542). As published, this final rule inadvertently removed paragraph (h). The Commission had added paragraph (h) to § 51.310 in a report and order and final rule published in the Federal Register of January 10, 2000 (65 FR 1331). This correction adds paragraph (h) back into the Commission's final rule.

This is a synopsis of the Report and Order in MM Docket No. 98-198 adopted March 8, 2000, and released March 21, 2000. The full text of this decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center at Portals ll, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3805, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036. Specifically, this document substitutes Channel 293A for Channel 294C at Muenster, Texas, and modifies the license of Station KXGM-FM to specify operation on Channel 294C. In order to accommodate Channel 294C at Muenster, it substitutes Channel 294C for Channel 296C1 at Granbury, Texas, reallots Channel 296C1 to Benbrook, Texas, and modifies the license of Station KDXT to specify operation on Channel 296C1 at Benbrook. It also substitutes Channel 294C2 for Channel 282C2 at Detroit, Texas, and substitutes Channel 284A for Channel 272A at Antlers, Oklahoma. It also substitutes Channel 295A for Channel 296A at McKinney, Texas, reallots Channel 296A to Campbell, Texas, and modifies the license of Station KZDF to specify operation on Channel 296A at Campbell. It substitutes Channel 294A for Channel 296C3 at Lone Grove, Oklahoma, and modifies the license of Station KYNZ to specify operation on Channel 263C3. To accommodate Channel 263C3 at Lone Grove, it substitutes Channel 296C3 for Channel 292A at Durant, Oklahoma, and modifies the license of Station KLBC to specify operation on Channel 292A. In order to accommodate Channel 296A at Campbell, it substitutes Channel 296A for Channel 295A at Terrell, Texas, reallots Channel 295A to Kerens, Texas, and modifies the license of Station KZDL to specify operation on Channel 295A at Kerens. The Channel 296C1 allotment at Benbrook requires the substitution of Channel 296C3 for Channel 234C3 at Graham, Texas, and modification of the license of Station KWKQ to specify operation on Channel 234C3; the substitution of Channel 296C3 for Channel 272C3 at Coleman, Texas, and the modification of the license of Station KSTA-FM to specify operation on Channel 272C3; and the substitution of Channel 296A for Channel 277A at Waco, Texas, and the modification of the license of Station KWBU to specify operation on Channel 277A. In order to allot Channel 277A at Waco, it substitutes Channel 277C3 for Channel 281C3 at Clifton, Texas, and modifies the license of Station KWOW to specify operation on Channel 281C3. In order to allot Channel 281C3 to Clifton, it substitutes Channel 281C1 for Channel 245C1 at Brownwood, Texas, and modifies the license of Station KXYL-FM to specify operation on Channel 245C1. In order to allot Channel 245C1 to Brownwood, it substitutes Channel 246A for Channel 291A at San Saba, Texas, and modifies the license of Station KBAL-FM to specify operation on Channel 291A. It also substitutes Channel 277C3 for Channel 277C at Commerce, Texas, reallots Channel 277C to Allen, Texas, and modifies the license of Station KEMM to specify operation on Channel 277C at Allen. In order to allot Channel 277C to Allen, it substitutes Channel 277C1 for Channel 272C1 at Wichita Falls, Texas, and modifies the license of Station KWFS to specify operation on Channel 272C1; and substitutes Channel 276C2 for Channel 271A at Atoka, Oklahoma, and modifies the license of Station KHKC to specify operation on Channel 298A. In order to allot Channel 272C1 to Wichita Falls, it substitutes Channel 273A for Channel 280A at Wichita Falls, Texas, and modifies the license of Station KQXC to specify operation on Channel 280; substitutes Channel 272A for Channel 276A at Vernon, Texas, and modifies the license of Station KVWC to specify operation on Channel 276A; substitutes Channel 272A for Channel 246A at Duncan, Oklahoma, and modifies the license of Station KKEN to specify operation on Channel 246A. In order to allot Channel 246A to Duncan, it substitutes Channel 246A for Channel 287A at Comanche, Oklahoma, and modifies the license of Station KDDQ to specify operation on Channel 287A. In order to allot Channel 287A to Comanche, it substitutes Channel 284C for Channel 284C1 at Burkburnett, Texas, and modifies the license of Station KYYI to specify operation on Channel 284C1. In order to allot Channel 280A to Wichita Falls, it substitutes Channel 279C1 for Channel 278C at Anadarko, Oklahoma, and modifies the license of Station KPRT to specify operation on Channel 278C. In order to allot Channel 278C to Anadarko, it substitutes Channel 278C1 for Channel 248C2 at Alva, Oklahoma; and substitutes Channel 278C3 for Channel 224A at Dickson, Oklahoma. It also substitutes Channel 237A for Channel 238A at Jacksboro, TX, and modifies the construction permit of Station KJKB to specify operation on Channel 238A. In order to allot Channel 238A to Jacksboro, it substitutes Channel 238C for Channel 246C1 at Haskell, Texas, and modifies the license of Station KVRP to specify operation on Channel 246C1. In order to allot Channel 246C1 to Haskell, it substitutes Channel 246A for Channel 255A at Snyder, Texas, and substitutes Channel 246A for Channel 245A at Eldorado, Oklahoma. See 63 FR 63016, November 10, 1998. The reference coordinates for the Channel 296C1 allotment at Benbrook, Texas, are 32-26-17 and 97-49-06. The reference coordinates for the Channel 296A allotment at Campbell, Texas, are 33-12-41 and 95-51-39. The reference coordinates for the Channel 296C3 allotment at Lone Grove, Oklahoma, are 34-15-01 and 97-07-42. The reference coordinates for the Channel 292A allotment at Durant, Oklahoma, are 34-00-07 and 96-25-19. The reference coordinates for the Channel 297C2 allotment at Lawton, Oklahoma, are 34-37-35 and 98-19-05. The reference coordinates for the Channel 295A allotment at Kerens, Texas, are 32-08-15 and 96-19-10. The reference coordinates for the Channel 234C3 allotment at Graham, Texas, are 33-02-39 and 98-46-27. The reference coordinates for the Channel 272C3 allotment at Coleman, Texas, are 31-51-16 and 99-25-36. The reference coordinates for the Channel 277A allotment at Waco, Texas, are 31-31-51 and 97-09-10. The reference coordinates for the Channel 281C3 allotment at Clifton, Texas, are 31-47-40 and 97-27-17. The reference coordinates for the Channel 245C1 allotment at Brownwood, Texas, are 31-42-16 and 99-00-05. The reference coordinates for the Channel 291A allotment at San Saba, Texas, are 31-11-26 and 98-42-55. The reference coordinates for the Channel 277C allotment at Allen, Texas, are 33-33-36 and 96-57-35. The reference coordinates for the Channel 272C1 allotment at Wichita Falls, Texas, are 34-03-57 and 98-45-05. The reference coordinates for the Channel 271A allotment at Atoka, Oklahoma, are 34-29-22 and 96-08-07. The reference coordinates for the Channel 280A allotment at Wichita Falls, Texas, are 33-53-50 and 98-32-33. The reference coordinates for the Channel 276A allotment at Vernon, Texas, are 34-09-12 and 99-16-09. The reference coordinates for the Channel 246A allotment at Duncan, Oklahoma, are 34-03-43 and 97-58-05. The reference coordinates for the Channel 287A allotment at Comanche, Oklahoma, are 34-22-50 and 98-06-02. The reference coordinates for the Channel 284C1 allotment at Burkburnett, Texas, are 34-05-35 and 98-52-44. The reference coordinates for the Channel 278C allotment at Anadarko, Oklahoma, are 35-23-18 and 98-37-41. The reference coordinates for the Channel 248C2 allotment at Alva, Oklahoma, are 36-58-32 and 98-42-21. The reference coordinates for the Channel 298C3 allotment at Wellington, Texas, are 34-49-13 and 100-14-29. The reference coordinates for the Channel 224A allotment at Dickson, Oklahoma, are 34-07-17 and 96-58-49. The reference coordinates for the Channel 238A allotment at Jacksboro, Texas, are 33-19-53 and 98-10-54. The reference coordinates for the Channel 246C1 allotment at Haskell, Texas, are 33-09-40 and 99-48-57. The reference coordinates for the Channel 249A allotment at Snyder, Texas, are 32-43-04 and 100-55-02. The reference coordinates for the Channel 245A allotment at Eldorado, Oklahoma, are 34-28-24 and 99-38-54. The reference coordinates for the Channel 239C1 allotment at Ardmore, Oklahoma, are 34-09-42 and 97-09-11. The reference coordinates for the Channel 240C1 allotment at Mineral Wells, Texas, are 32-39-15 and 98-11-58. The reference coordinates for the Channel 237C2 allotment at Howe, Texas, are 33-31-09 and 96-47-05. The reference coordinates for the Channel 282C2 allotment at Detroit, Texas, are 33-47-21 and 95-33-07. The reference coordinates for the Channel 272A allotment at Antlers, Oklahoma, are 34-18-05 and 95-33-06.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The amount of the interim 2000 BSAI AFA catcher vessel rock sole sideboard harvest limit was established as 2,921 metric tons (mt) in accordance with § 679.63 (b)(1)(ii)(A) by the Emergency Interim Rule to Implement Major Provisions of the American Fisheries Act (65 FR 4520, January 28, 2000).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iv), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the sideboard harvest limit of rock sole for non-exempt AFA catcher vessels will be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 2,500 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 421 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance will soon be reached. Consequently, NMFS is closing directed fishing for rock sole by non-exempt AFA catcher vessels in the BSAI.

Maximum retainable bycatch amounts may be found in the regulations at § 679.20(e) and (f).