On December 27, 1999, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) published an interim rule (64 FR 72249) to abolish the Washington, Maryland, nonappropriated fund (NAF) Federal Wage System (FWS) wage area and establish a new Frederick, MD, NAF FWS wage area. Under section 5343 of title 5, United States Code, OPM is responsible for defining FWS wage areas. For this purpose, we follow the regulatory criteria in section 532.219(b) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.

The Washington wage area is presently composed of one survey county, Washington County, and two area of application counties, Frederick County, MD, and Berkeley County, WV. The closure of the Washington wage area's host activity, Fort Ritchie, left the Department of Defense (DOD) without an activity in the survey area capable of conducting annual local NAF wage surveys. Fort Ritchie ceased operations on October 1, 1998, and NAF FWS employees no longer work in Washington County. However, the area of application counties, Frederick and Berkeley, continue to have NAF FWS employment. Under section 5343(a)(1)(B)(i) of title 5, United States Code, NAF wage areas “shall not extend beyond the immediate locality in which the particular prevailing rate employees are employed.” Therefore, Washington County cannot be defined as part of an NAF wage area.

Frederick County, MD, has approximately 36 NAF FWS employees and a local Federal installation, Fort Detrick, has the capability to host annual local NAF wage surveys. Furthermore, Frederick County has more than the required minimum number of private enterprise employees in establishments within survey specifications. Approximately 10 NAF FWS employees work in Berkeley County, WV, which does not meet the criteria to be a separate NAF wage area. Therefore, the county must be an area of application. The new Frederick, MD, NAF wage area will have one survey county, Frederick County, MD, and one area of application county, Berkeley County, WV. DOD will order annual wage surveys in January of each even fiscal year. DOD ordered the first full-scale wage survey for the Frederick wage area in January 2000.

The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee, the national labor-management committee responsible for advising OPM on matters concerning the pay of FWS employees, has reviewed and concurred by consensus with this change. The interim rule had a 30-day public comment period, during which OPM did not receive any comments.

I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it will affect only Federal agencies and employees.

On November 4, 1999, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) published an interim rule (64 FR 60087) to remove the requirement to conduct a full-scale wage survey in the Dubuque, Iowa, appropriated fund Federal Wage System (FWS) wage area and to abolish the wage area. FWS employees in the Dubuque wage area moved to the Davenport, IA, wage schedule on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after December 19, 1999.

Under section 5343 of title 5, United States Code, OPM is responsible for defining FWS wage areas. For this purpose, we follow the regulatory criteria in section 532.211 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations. The Dubuque wage area is presently composed of six survey counties, Clinton, Dubuque, and Jackson, IA, and Carroll, Jo Daviess, and Whiteside, IL. The Department of Defense (DOD) asked OPM to abolish the requirement to conduct a full-scale wage survey in the Dubuque wage area because of the planned closure of the wage area's host installation, the Savannah Army Depot. This closure leaves DOD without an installation in the survey area that is capable of hosting annual local wage surveys. DOD also asked OPM to abolish the Dubuque wage area and redefine its counties to the area of application of the Davenport, IA, FWS wage area.

The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee, the national labor-management committee responsible for advising OPM on matters concerning the pay of FWS employees, reviewed these recommendations and by consensus recommended approval of these changes. The interim rule had a 30-day public comment period, during which OPM did not receive any comments.

I certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they will affect only Federal agencies and employees.

Pursuant to the Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act (Act)(7 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. ), every 5 years the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) will give soybean producers the opportunity to request a referendum on the Order. If the Secretary determines that at least 10 percent of U.S. producers engaged in growing soybeans (not in excess of one-fifth of which may be producers in any one State) support the conduct of a referendum, the Secretary must conduct a referendum within 1 year of that determination. If these requirements are not met, a referendum would not be conducted.

A notice of opportunity to Request a Soybean Referendum was publicized in the Federal Register on September 13, 1999, at 64 FR 49349. Soybean producers who produced soybeans during the representative period between January 1, 1997, and November 16, 1999, were eligible to participate in the Request for Referendum.

According to USDA's soybean producer survey, there are 600,813 soybean producers in the United States (see 64 FR 45413).

A total of 17,970 valid Requests for Referendum were completed by eligible soybean producers. This number does not meet the requisite number of 60,082. Therefore, based on the Request for Referendum results, a referendum will not be conducted. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, soybean producers would be provided another opportunity to request a referendum in 5 years.

The following is the State-by-State results of the Request for Referendum:

Background

The Compact was established by “The Omnibus Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Consent Act of 1985,” Public Law 99-240, Title II (the “Act”). The Act gave Congress” consent to agreements between and among states that were designed to facilitate the regional disposal of low-level radioactive waste (“waste”), thereby promoting the health and safety of the region. Connecticut and New Jersey are current members of the Compact. The Act also established the Commission and gave it authority, inter alia, to promulgate rules, conduct hearings, receive and act on applications to become eligible states, develop regional plans to ensure safe and effective management of waste within the region, designate a host state for siting of a regional disposal facility, enter agreements for the importation of waste into the region and export of waste from the region, impose sanctions, and establish criteria for disposal fees. The Commission consists of one voting member from Connecticut and one voting member from New Jersey.

Since the establishment of the Compact, there has been no regional disposal facility to receive waste generated within the Compact states. Nevertheless, at various times, regional generators have been able to dispose of their waste at other facilities (e.g., at facilities located in Clive, Utah, and Barnwell, South Carolina). Those facilities have not always been available for disposal of all of the waste generated within the region, however, and the Commission has sought to make available more reliable access to waste disposal facilities. Current regional generators anticipate that they will need assured access to waste disposal facilities for the next 50 years until all of the currently licensed nuclear power stations are fully decommissioned and all spent nuclear fuel has been removed from the sites. With these needs in mind, the Commission seeks to ensure the long-term availability of approximately 800,000 cubic feet of disposal space to accommodate all classes of low-level waste. The Commission also seeks to stabilize fees for waste disposal.

The Commission has determined that it is in the interests of the Compact states to declare another state eligible for membership in the Compact if (a) that state is willing to become the voluntary host state and (b) membership in the Compact would achieve important objectives for both the current member states and any petitioning state. Article VII.e. of the Compact permits the Commission to “establish such conditions as it deems necessary and appropriate to be met by a state requesting eligibility as a party state to this compact.” The Commission has further determined that the identification and implementation of reasonable conditions to be applied when evaluating a petition for new party state eligibility are essential to the long-term health and safety of the region.

These rules establish the conditions for party state eligibility contemplated by Article VII.e. of the Compact and the criteria for fee and surcharge systems contemplated by Article IV.i.(15) of the Compact. The rules specify the procedures that the Commission will follow for receiving petitions for party state eligibility. They then describe the essential conditions for declaring a state eligible for membership in the Compact. Those conditions include agreements (a) to be the sole host state until all currently licensed nuclear power stations in the region have been decommissioned, (b) to warrant the availability of 800,000 cubic feet of disposal capacity for Connecticut and New Jersey generators, (c) to assure stable, predictable disposal fees that are no greater than generators in Connecticut and New Jersey paid at the end of 1999, (d) to give flexibility for generators to dispose of waste elsewhere at their discretion, (e) to indemnify the existing party states for any potential environmental liability caused by their membership in the Compact and by operation of the regional disposal facility, and (f) to ensure an equitable schedule for return of a portion of any incentive payment made by the existing party states if the regional disposal facility ceases to be available for any reason.

The Commission received written comments on the proposed rule (65 FR 13700, March 14, 2000) from the New Jersey Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility Siting Board, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, GPU Nuclear, the State of Connecticut Office of Policy Management, Public Service Electric & Gas Company, and Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company. These organizations (except Connecticut Yankee), as well as the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce and the New Jersey Business and Industry Association, offered oral comments at public hearings held in Trenton, NJ on April 17, 2000, and in Bridgeport, CT on April 18, 2000. All of the commenters supported the proposed rule and urged its adoption. Copies of the public comments are available for review at the Commission's office, 703 Hebron Avenue, Glastonbury, Connecticut 06033.

None of the public commenters objected to the Commission's proposed procedures and criteria for declaring a state eligible to become a party to the Compact. Some of the comments raise issues that should be addressed during the evaluation of a specific petition for declaration as a party state. Other comments raise issues that are appropriately addressed separately from this rulemaking. The Commission is grateful for all of the thoughtful comments that have been offered. The following discussion describes the Commission's evaluation of the comments received.

General Comments: Several commenters commended the rulemaking process and the criteria that the Commission established for declaring an eligible state. Various commenters stated that the rule appropriately: (1) Ensures that any new eligible state will be the voluntary host state until all current nuclear power plants within the region are fully decommissioned, (2) guarantees 800,000 cubic feet of disposal capacity for New Jersey and Connecticut generators, (3) permits imports and exports of waste into and out of the region, (4) caps disposal fees at predictable, reasonable levels, (5) requires the return of incentive payments if the regional disposal facility becomes unavailable for any reason, and (6) indemnifies Connecticut and New Jersey for any damages liability. The Commission appreciates the commenters' affirmation of these essential components of the rule.

Specific Comment No. 1: Several commenters raised questions about the methodology that would be employed under § 1800.13(d) to determine the average fees that generators within the existing party states paid for disposal at the Barnwell, South Carolina, facility at the end of calendar year 1999. One commenter suggested that the Commission should establish explicit criteria under Compact Article V.f. to be used in determining these baseline fees. The commenter proposed the following criteria: (a) Fees should be fair and equitable among various classes of generators and should bear some reasonable relationship to the cost of disposal; (b) fees should be simple and easy to calculate; (c) fees should be competitive and should reflect market-based conditions; and (d) fees should generate adequate revenues to assure an economically viable disposal facility.

The Commission agrees with the commenters on the importance of determining the maximum disposal fee and generally agrees with the principles suggested as guidelines for determining those fees under the rule. The Commission does not believe it is necessary at this time, however, to establish any further explicit criteria for setting the maximum disposal fee to which a petitioning state must agree. The rule establishes the fees paid in the later part of calendar year 1999 as the basis for the prospective uniform maximum fee schedule. That rate presumptively represents a market-based rate because it is the rate that generators were willing to pay in 1999 for disposal of waste at the Barnwell facility. Any more specific criteria for determining the fees may unnecessarily limit a new party state's ability to devise an acceptable maximum waste disposal fee schedule.

The Commission will apply this rule to evaluate any petition by a state seeking to be declared eligible for Compact membership. It will be up to the petitioning state to demonstrate that the maximum disposal rate schedule will be determined fairly and equitably based on the rates that Connecticut and New Jersey generators paid in 1999. The Commission will consider the petitioning state's actual determination of disposal rates before acting on the petition to ensure that the process used was acceptable, and, before accepting the petition, the Commission may impose conditions specifying disposal rates. In light of these procedures, the Commission sees no need to modify the rule.

Specific Comment No. 2: Several commenters asked the Commission to identify which index will be used to determine the inflation factor or the process that will be used to select the appropriate index. The rule in § 1800.13(d) deliberately did not specify a specific inflation index, but stated that it must be acceptable to the Commission. With input from generators and the existing states, the Commission has considered use of a variety of indices, including the Producer Price Index, the Employment Cost Index, the Consumer Price Index, and the Gross Domestic Product deflator. The Commission believes that an appropriate index within the Producer Price indices will probably be acceptable, but the Commission will evaluate the proposed index in any petition to determine whether it is finally acceptable. No change in the rule is necessary.

Specific Comment No. 3: Two commenters suggested that the rule in § 1800.13(h) was not clear because it did not specify what would happen if the regional disposal facility ceases to be available on December 31 in the years 2001, 2003, 2005, or 2008. The commenters suggested that § 1800.13(h) be changed so that the end of each period is “prior to January 1” in the appropriate year. The Commission accepts this change and has incorporated it in the final rule.

Specific Comment No. 4: One commenter asked whether, under the rule in § 1800.13(e), the Commission will continue to obtain all necessary approvals for regional generators to dispose of waste outside the region, whether regional generators will be permitted to ship waste outside the region for purposes of treatment, volume reduction, repackaging, storage, processing or any other reason, and whether repackaged waste or its residue can be shipped directly to the regional disposal facility as regional waste. The Commission affirms that, as it interprets § 1800.13(e), the Commission will continue to obtain appropriate approvals for regional generators to dispose of waste outside the region, regional generators will be permitted to ship waste outside the region for purposes of treatment, volume reduction, repackaging, storage, processing or any other reason, and repackaged waste or its residue will be permitted to be shipped directly to the regional disposal facility as regional waste. No change to the rule is required.

Specific Comment No. 5: One commenter asked the Commission to specify how the 800,000 cubic feet of disposal capacity that will be allotted to generators in the existing party states would be divided between Connecticut and New Jersey. As the commenter noted, it currently appears that 800,000 cubic feet of disposal capacity will be sufficient to accommodate both states' projected waste volumes. At this time, the Commission expects that the total disposal capacity available for Connecticut and New Jersey will be divided evenly, with 400,000 cubic feet allotted to each state's generators. Nevertheless, circumstances may change over the next 50 years. Thus, the Commission (or the Commissioners representing Connecticut and New Jersey) may modify this presumptive allocation to meet the needs of the generators in the two states. Any modification to the even division of available disposal capacity between the two states should consider the needs of generators and any comments that the generators in those states may have on the appropriate allocation.

Conclusions: After considering all of the comments, the Commission concludes that this final rule, as modified, will further promote health and safety within the region. It will provide a mechanism for the Commission to consider a long-term resolution for disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated within the region. It will establish the essential conditions that must be satisfied before declaring a state eligible for membership in the Compact. The rules are consistent with and will further the purposes of the Compact and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, as amended (Pub. L. 96-573; Pub. L. 99-240, Title I).

The Commission has authority to issue this rule under The Omnibus Low-level Radioactive Waste Compact Consent Act of 1985, Public Law 99-240, section 227, Art. IV(i)(7), Art. VII(e), 99 Stat. 1842, 1914, 1921-22.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Commission establishes chapter XVIII, consisting of part 1800, in title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:

Under section 3(a)(2) of the Small Business Act, SBA establishes small business definitions, or size standards, by industry category and varies size standards as necessary to reflect industry differences to determine small business eligibility for Federal programs. The current table of size standards uses SIC industry descriptions as the basis for the size standards. Because NAICS replaced the SIC system for use by Federal agencies in collecting economic data, we reviewed NAICS to determine whether we should also use the NAICS industry descriptions to establish small business size standards. Based on that review, we proposed in the October 22, 1999, Federal Register (64 FR 57187-57286) to adopt a new table of small business size standards for industries as they are described in NAICS, effective October 1, 2000.

The new table would replace the existing table of size standards for industries as they are described in the SIC system. We invited comments from interested parties on our proposal to adopt NAICS-based size standards. Specifically, we requested comments on at least the following: (1) Is FY 2001 an appropriate effective date? (2) Are the guidelines that we used in proposing the new size standards appropriate? (3) Will there be a significant impact on firms in an industry where some firms will lose size eligibility or formerly large firms will now become small? (4) If the answer to (3) is yes, how can we eliminate or minimize that potential impact?

NAICS was designed, as was the SIC system, solely for statistical purposes. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published a “Notice of final decision” in the Federal Register on April 9, 1997 (62 FR 17288-17478), announcing its decision to adopt NAICS. OMB's notice stated that “NAICS shall not be used in any administrative, regulatory, or tax program unless the head of the agency administering that program has first determined that the use of such industry definitions is appropriate for implementation of the program's objectives.” As the Administrator of SBA I have determined that NAICS industry descriptions are more appropriate than SIC industry descriptions to use in SBA programs and to accomplish our Agency's mission. Further, all Federal Agencies, in accordance with section 3(a)(2) of the Small Business Act, must use SBA's established size standards to categorize a business as a small business concern, unless the agencies: (1) Are authorized by statute to do otherwise; or (2) have obtained the SBA Administrator's approval for an alternative. NAICS is an improvement over the SIC system in identifying and describing industries in the U.S. economy, and size standards established for NAICS industries will better define small business. This final rule adopts the proposed size standards and specifies an effective date of October 1, 2000.

We received three comments to the proposed rule, each of which supported it. Two comments were from industry associations, and the third is from an SBA office. Besides supporting the proposed rule, the comments included some other observations and suggestions. We will summarize and address their comments here.

1. An association representing moving and storage companies supports our proposal to issue the new table of size standards based on NAICS using our proposed methodology, and also supports October 1, 2000, as the implementation date if an earlier one is not practicable. We stated in the October 22, 1999, proposed rule why we believe October 1, 2000, is the appropriate date. Our three reasons concerned consistency in government recordkeeping and statistics, development of historical data for comparison purposes, and the need for time to convert and update data bases and tracking systems (see 64 FR 57190). The association also commented on its understanding of certain specific NAICS codes and how those NAICS codes will apply to future Federal government and military contracts. The association indicates that it “does not believe that any firms in the moving and storage industry will be affected by this change, as the same $18.5 million size standard will apply as is currently in place.” We believe this supports our conclusions that because we applied the guidelines consistently, the size standards we proposed are appropriate and that this change will cause little loss of small business eligibility, if any, to businesses currently eligible to participate in Federal small business programs.

2. A coalition of environmental contractors supported SBA's methodology and the FY 2001 implementation date as well. They raised, however, questions about two NAICS codes for which we established a $5.0 million size standard. Specifically, the coalition questioned whether $5 million is appropriate for NAICS codes 514199, “All Other Information Services,” and 541620, “Environmental Consulting Services.” NAICS codes 514199 and 541620 are two activities related to SIC 8999, “Services, NEC” (specifically, Miscellaneous Information Providers and Environmental Consultants), both of which are new NAICS industries. The current size standard for SIC 8999 is $5 million.

Concerning NAICS 514199, it is one of five industries within Subsector 514, “Information Services and Data Processing Services.” Four of those NAICS industries are related to and the same as four SIC industries. Two of them, namely NAICS 514191 (On-Line Information Services) and NAICS 514210 (Data Processing Services) are Computer Services. All industry activities described within SIC codes 7371 through 7379 have the same $18.0 million size standard. We applied the first proposed guideline, and therefore, $18.0 million is the correct size standard for NAICS 514191 and NAICS 514210. The other two NAICS codes, namely NAICS 514110 (News Syndicates) and NAICS 514120 (Libraries and Archives) are related to and the same as SIC 7383 (News Syndicates) and SIC 8231 (Libraries) respectively. The size standards for SIC 7383 and 8231 are $5.0 million. We applied the first proposed guideline, and therefore, $5.0 million is the correct size standard for NAICS 514110 and NAICS 514120. While all of these industries are parts of Subsector 514 (Information Services and Data Processing Services), NAICS 514199 specifically excludes news syndicates, libraries, archives and on-line information access. Further, NAICS 514199 is only related to part of SIC 8999, “Services, NEC,” and it is limited to “miscellaneous information providers.” Therefore, consistent with the first guideline, and the other industries in this Subsector, $5.0 million is the correct size standard for NAICS 514199.

Concerning NAICS 541620, “Environmental Consulting Services,” the coalition further suggested that the size standard should be 500 employees, the same as we established for “Environmental Remediation Services,” a segment of SIC 8744, “Facilities Support Management Services.” Consistent with the fourth proposed guideline, we retained this activity and its corresponding size standard of 500 employees as a segment within NAICS 562910 “Remediation Services.” NAICS 562910 is an industry related to part of SIC 1799, “Special Trade Contractors, NEC.” Because the size standard for SIC 1799 is $7 million, we are retaining $7 million as the size standard for NAICS 562910. This is consistent with the first proposed guideline.

The distinction between “Remediation Services” and “Environmental Remediation Services” lies in the extent and complexity of work to be performed on a specific Federal government contract. “Environmental Consulting Services” is one activity, and, as the coalition notes, often conducted in conjunction with an environmental remediation contract. However, “Environmental Remediation Services” requires that (1) the purpose of the procurement be the restoration of a contaminated environment, i.e., environmental remediation, and (2) the procurement be composed of activities in three or more separate industries, none of which constitutes 50% or more of the contract value, and each of which would, if it were a separate contract, be a different NAICS (formerly SIC) code. Footnote 14 more fully details when 500 employees is the appropriate size standard for an Environmental Remediation Services contract.

Therefore, the size standards for NAICS 541620 and NAICS 562910 will be $5 million and $7 million respectively. The contracting officer will assign the NAICS code together with its small business size standard that best describes the principal purpose of the contract to be performed. If Environmental Consulting Services is the principal purpose of a Federal government procurement, the appropriate NAICS code is 541620 and the size standard is $5 million. If the principal purpose of the Federal government procurement is Environmental Remediation Services and it meets the conditions stated in Footnote 14, the contracting officer will assign NAICS 562910 with the 500 employee size standard. We recognize that these three industries are closely related. As industry data become available for these industries, we will reconsider their size standard(s).

Lastly, the coalition suggests we review the $5 million “anchor” size standard for industries generally classified as Services. In 1994 we increased nearly all receipts based size standards because inflation had reduced the number of small businesses eligible to participate in Federal programs reserved for small business. We are reviewing all receipts based small business size standards to determine the extent of inflation since the 1994 increase, and whether we should adjust the size standards to reflect inflation's effects since then. Once we determine the need for an increase, we will publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register concerning the change.

While we are open to requests to change one or more size standards, this rule is limited to replacing the existing table of small business size standards with a new one based on more current and accurate industry definitions. This rule does not reevaluate existing small business size standards nor does it intend to change any. We modify size standards occasionally, but only after we have separately evaluated individual industries and their size standards. Such modifications are separate SBA actions. Following the requirements set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act, we fully explain our methodology and reasons for a contemplated change, and do not make changes without having provided an opportunity for public comment.

For example, we have proposed increasing size standards for the Help Supply Services (SIC 7363), 11 of the 19 Health Services (Major Group 80), the General and Special Construction Industries (Major Groups 15, 16 and 17), Garbage and Refuse Collection (part of SIC 4212) and Refuse Systems (SIC 4953). The comment period is closed on those proposed rules, and we will publish our decision on them as Final Rules in the Federal Register in the near future. However, those size standards, once published as final, will apply to industries in the current table of size standards based on the SIC system, until October 1, 2000. From that date forward they will apply to the related industries as they are described in NAICS. The table that is the subject of this rule is based only on existing size standards.

3. The SBA comment noted that in Table IV of the proposed rule we did not affix Footnote 10 to NAICS codes 531311, 531312, 531390 and 561920, but had listed those NAICS codes in the text of Footnote 10 as if the footnote applied to those codes. Footnote 10 allows firms in those industries to exclude certain amounts when calculating average annual receipts under 13 CFR 121.104(a)(1). Footnote 10 to this table is the same as Footnote 6 to the table based on SIC industry descriptions.

Footnote 10 does not apply to firms in NAICS codes 531311 (Residential Property Managers), 531312 (Nonresidential Property Managers) and 531390 (Other Activities Related to Real Estate), since they do not work on commission. Including them in the list of NAICS codes to which Footnote 10 applied was inadvertent on our part. Therefore, we modify Footnote 10 to apply only to NAICS 531210 (Offices of Real Estate Agents and Brokers), NAICS 541810 (Advertising Agencies), NAICS 561510 (Travel Agencies) and NAICS 561920 (Convention and Trade Show Organizers).

The SBA comment also noted that the proposed rule did not reflect the change of the acronym SIC to NAICS in §§ 121.103(f)(3)(i), 121.103(f)(3)(i)(A), and 121.103(f)(3)(iii). We overlooked those changes in the proposed rule, but have included them in this final rule. The changes are not substantive. Rather, “NAICS” replaces “SIC” there as it does in the other sections of this part. They are the logical outgrowth of this overall change. There were no other comments in this regard.

We explained in our October 22, 1999, proposed rule why we believed a new table of size standards based on NAICS should replace the existing table based on SIC. NAICS is a significant improvement over the SIC system and provides a better structure on which to establish size standards by industry category. NAICS was developed to describe the structure of today's economy. We have determined that the new table of small business size standards reflecting NAICS industries is in the interests of small business. We stated in our October 22, 1999, proposed rule why we believe we should use NAICS for small business size standards, namely because (1) the SIC system has not kept up with the economy; (2) NAICS recognizes the growth and expansion of the services and technological industries; (3) the Census Bureau will no longer organize and make data available for SIC industries after the 1997 Economic Census; and (4) we believe that all other Federal agencies will switch to NAICS for their program and administrative purposes. Having a single industry classification system within the Federal government will avoid confusion and inconsistency that would likely result if we delay issuing a new table of size standards based on NAICS.

NAICS-based size standards are effective for all Federal small business programs beginning with FY 2001, which starts October 1, 2000. We have selected this date to implement NAICS-based size standards because (1) Federal government recordkeeping and statistics will be more consistent and comparable with past data and for analyzing future small business activity if implementation of the new table of size standards is at the beginning of a fiscal year; (2) we and other users of size standards will need to collect data on small business programs on the NAICS format to be able to compare those data with the future Federal statistics; and (3) small business size standards apply to most Federal agencies and their programs involving small businesses, and they will need time to determine how to implement the new size standards and to develop training tools necessary to do so.

OMB adopted NAICS to replace the 1987 SIC system. NAICS is based on concepts developed by the U.S. Economic Classification Policy Committee (ECPC), an interagency committee established by OMB, with Statistics Canada and Mexico's Instituto Nacional de Estadi stica Geografi a e Informati ca. We did not in our proposed rule, nor do we here, include the entire texts of OMB's or ECPC's documents. We suggest that interested parties review the April 9, 1997, Federal Register (62 FR 17288-17478) notice, together with earlier Federal Register notices, proposed rules and other papers and documents that preceded and followed that final notice. We believe that this will help interested parties understand NAICS better and increase their awareness of the changes that may affect them and their industry. Copies of all Federal Register notices, including SBA's October 22, 1999, proposed rule, are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by calling 1 (202) 512-1800. Those with access to the Internet can obtain all Federal Register notices for 1995 and forward via GPO Access at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs. In addition, the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census (Census Bureau) at http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html has the April 9, 1997, Federal Register notice and other NAICS related documents.

The October 22, 1999, proposed rule contains a full description of our methodology in determining the correct size standards to use for the NAICS industry descriptions. We included a table (Table III in the proposed rule) that summarized guidelines for the conversions. Comments supported our methodology and this rule is the result of our applying them consistently. Therefore, we have made no changes to the size standards we proposed in that notice. We repeat those guidelines below in Table I, which is the same as Table III in the proposed rule.

Following these guidelines we produced a table of small business size standards that accomplished our objectives. There are approximately 1,175 NAICS industries, and small business size standards for virtually all economic activities within the SIC codes remain the same in NAICS. Most of the NAICS small business size standards resulted from applying the first two guidelines. There were no comments suggesting that SBA should consider modifying the guidelines.

Besides the guidelines, SBA included in the October 22, 1999, proposed rule a complete table that showed each NAICS industry with the SIC industry or industries that are related to it. That table (Table IV in the proposed rule) provided the existing size standard(s) for the associated SIC code(s) and the proposed size standard for each NAICS code, as they result from applying the guidelines. Because we applied these guidelines consistently, and the only comments on them that we received were favorable, we are not repeating that table in this rule. Interested parties may refer to the October 22, 1999, proposed rule (64 FR 57187-57286), as cited above, or visit SBA's Web site on size standards site at http://www.sba.gov/size/, and select “What's New.”

SBA has determined that this rule is not a significant rule within the meaning of Executive Order 12866. For purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, SBA certifies that the rule will affect a significant number of small businesses, but that the impact of the rule on each business will not be substantial.

This rule applies to all small entities and Federal programs reserved for small entities, except those specifically excluded by Federal legislation or elsewhere under 13 CFR part 121. SBA estimates that relatively few firms will gain or lose small business status because of this rule. Though SBA is establishing a new table of size standards, firms that are now eligible for Federal small business programs will remain eligible to the maximum extent practicable.

There are three significant benefits to this rule. (a) Size standards are based on the most current industry descriptions. (b) Since SBA uses Census data to establish, review, change and/or otherwise modify small business size standards, data SBA obtains from the Census Bureau will be the most recent and accurate economic data available. (c) Collecting and analyzing statistical data on small business participation in the Federal procurement process will be more accurate, particularly in the technological and services industries.

SBA believes that this rule will impose no additional costs on the public. Further, the new NAICS-based table of small business size standards does not add any significant costs to Federal Government programs reserved for small businesses. Federal agencies and other users bear the administrative costs associated with converting from the SIC system to NAICS.

For the purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. , SBA has determined that this rule does not impose new reporting or record keeping requirements. For purposes of Executive Order 12988, SBA certifies that this rule is drafted, to the extent possible under standards in section 3 of the order. For purposes of Executive Order 13132, SBA has determined that this rule does not have any federalism implications warranting the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Government procurement, Government property, Grant programs-business, Loan programs-business, Small business.

What caused this AD? This AD is the result of damage to the insulation of the wiring within the wing fuel tanks of the fuel quantity indication system on two British Aerospace Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes. Further investigation shows that the damage to the insulation occurred during factory installation.

Has FAA taken any action to this point? We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to all British Aerospace Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on January 6, 2000 (65 FR 729). The NPRM proposed to require you to inspect the fuel quantity indication system for damage to the insulation of the wiring within the fuel tanks, with necessary repair or replacement of damaged wiring. Damage is defined as corrosion (indicated by a dark stain), cuts, or nicks.

The NPRM would require you to accomplish the proposed actions in accordance with British Aerospace Jetstream Alert Service Bulletin 28-A-JA990841, Original Issue: September 8, 1999; or British Aerospace Jetstream Alert Service Bulletin 28-A-JA990841, Original Issue: September 8, 1999; Revision No. 1: November 12, 1999.

Was the public invited to comment? The FAA offered interested persons the opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. We have given due consideration to the one comment received.

What is the Commenter's Concern? The commenter requests that FAA extend the compliance time to 3 months instead of 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 60 calendar days, whichever occurs first. The commenter states that high usage Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes can accumulate 100 hours TIS in well under 30 days. The commenter's concern is that entities with large fleets of the affected airplanes may not be able to accomplish the proposed AD if not given at least a 30-day period.

What is FAA's Response to the Concern? We concur with extending the compliance time, but not to 3 months. We will maintain the 60 calendar days, and will increase the 100-hour TIS time to 200 hours TIS. This will give the high usage airplanes more than 30 days to accomplish the action and the low usage airplanes 60 days. British Aerospace issued the service information in September 1999 and specified compliance in October 1999. The change in the compliance time coincides with the service bulletin.

What is FAA's final determination on this issue? After reviewing all available information related to the subject presented above, we have determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for the change in the compliance time and minor editorial corrections.

How do these changes and corrections affect the AD? We have determined that the change and minor corrections will not change the meaning of the AD and will not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed.

What is the compliance time of this AD? The compliance time of this AD is within the next 200 hours TIS or 60 calendar days, whichever occurs first.

Why is the compliance in both calendar time and hours TIS? The compliance time of this AD is presented in both calendar time and hours TIS. Damage to the insulation of the wires in the fuel quantity indicator system could result in corrosion in the core conductor. Corrosion damage can then develop regardless of whether the airplane is in flight, and may not develop until a later time. Therefore, in order to assure that any damage does not go undetected, we are utilizing a compliance time of both hours TIS and calendar time (the prevalent one being that which occurs first).

How many airplanes does this AD impact? The FAA estimates that this AD affects 115 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

What is the cost impact of this action on owners/operators of the affected airplanes? We estimate that it would take approximately 60 workhours per airplane to accomplish this action, at an average labor rate of $60 an hour. Based on these figures, FAA estimates the cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators at $414,000, or $3,600 per airplane.

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.

The FAA has determined 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 on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Events Leading to the Issuance of This AD What caused this AD?

This AD is the result of several icing-related incidents and accidents of MU-2B series airplanes, and FAA's investigation of both the airplane design and pilot's ability to operate in icing conditions.

We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to all Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on May 21, 1998 (63 FR 27872). The NPRM proposed to require you to incorporate the following modifications on the airplane's operating systems:

(1) An ice detection system;

(2) A deice monitoring system;

(3) An automatic autopilot disconnect system and a trim-in-motion alert system;

(4) An engine continuous-duty ignition replacement system; and

(5) An auto-ignition (re-light) system.

The NPRM also proposed to require you to fabricate a placard (using 1/8 -inch letters) with the following words and proposed to require you to install this placard within the pilot's clear view:

“Prior to the first flight of each day, a negative torque sensing (NTS) check and a Propeller Feather Valve check must be performed in accordance with the Normal Checklist Procedures.”

Accomplishment of the proposed actions as specified in the NPRM would be required in accordance with:

• Mitsubishi MU-2 Service Bulletin (SB) No. 217, Revision B, dated November 7, 1996;

• Mitsubishi MU-2 SB No. 226, which incorporates the following pages:

• Mitsubishi MU-2 SB No. 231, dated July 2, 1997, Mitsubishi MU-2 SB No. 232, dated July 2, 1997;

• Mitsubishi MU-2B SB No. 074/74-001, dated October 9, 1991;

• Test Instrumentation, Inc. Document No. MU2-1001, Rev. C, dated June 15, 1997;

• Test Instrumentation, Inc. Document No. MU2-4001, Rev. C, dated June 30, 1997;

• Test Instrumentation, Inc. Document No. MU2-5001, Rev. E., dated May 21, 1997; and

• Test Instrumentation, Inc. Document No. MU2-6005, dated September 28, 1997.

Interested persons were afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment through the following avenues:

• Comments to the Docket file in accordance with the procedures specified in the NPRM; and

• Communications with FAA at a public meeting held in December 1998. Announcement of this public meeting was published in the Federal Register on September, 29, 1998 (63 FR 51865).

Several icing-related incidents and accidents of Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes caused FAA to investigate the airplane design and pilot's ability to operate in icing conditions. The FAA conducted a special certification review, which focused on factual information related to Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes involved in icing incidents/accidents. This review was named a Focused Fact Finding Special Certification Review (FFFSCR). This review shows that several accidents and incidents have occurred, and that modifications to the airplane design and additional pilot training may prevent future accidents/incidents. The training issues were addressed in AD 97-20-14, Amendment 39-10150 (62 FR 51594, October 2, 1997).

The following presents whether FAA has included in or excluded from this final rule each action that was proposed in the NPRM:

The following presents the actions we proposed in the NPRM, but are excluding from the final rule AD. Also included is a brief description of why we are excluding each one:

1. Ice detection system: The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) recently established an Ice Protection Harmonization Working Group (IPHWG). We are waiting for this group to conclude its study before deciding whether to require an ice detection system on the affected airplanes;

2. Engine continuous-duty ignition system: We determined that the safety aspect of this AD only required the incorporation of the auto-ignition (re-light) system or the engine continuous-duty ignition system. We chose the auto-ignition (re-light system) because it is independent of other pilot actions; and

3. Placard to require negative torque sensing (NTS) check and propeller feather valve check as part of the Normal Checklist Procedures: We determined that the safety aspects of including this information did not outweigh the confusion that could be generated through the installation of such a large placard on the instrument panel. If our analysis of the continued airworthiness of the affected airplanes shows that this information is necessary, we may initiate further rulemaking to require this information to become part of the Limitations Section of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM).

The FAA has determined that the modifications required in this AD will correct the unsafe condition identified in the NPRM. We considered all comments received.

The following paragraphs present the comments received on the NPRM and at the public meeting. Also included is FAA's response to each comment, including any changes incorporated into the final rule based on the comments.

Many commenters state that inadequate pilot training is the cause of the referenced incidents and accidents of the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes.

The FAA partially concurs. The FAA has determined that both systems modifications and pilot training are needed to prevent future icing accidents and incidents on the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes. Training issues were addressed in AD 97-20-14, Amendment 39-10150 (62 FR 51594, October 2, 1997). The FAA will continue to monitor the need for future training and will take any appropriate action. This AD addresses the systems modifications.

We are not changing the AD as a result of these comments.

Numerous commenters object to the incorporation of an ice detection system because:

1. Pilot training is the issue and FAA should focus on providing the appropriate training.

2. The ice detection system will not solve the problem because the Aerospatiale Model ATR-72 airplane involved in the Roselawn accident had an ice detection system installed and a problem still existed.

3. The Roselawn accident with the Aerospatiale Model ATR-72 airplane would not have occurred if the autopilot had remained connected; therefore, the problem with the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes is the autopilot disconnect.

4. The ice detection system is a bad idea because of the excellent visual icing cues of the MU-2B series airplanes and the potential for unrecognized mechanical failure.

5. Based on a commenter's experience in another type of airplane, the ice detection system could provide false positive warnings.

6. Install BF Goodrich Company SMART BOOTS on the affected airplanes. These boots incorporate electronic sensors imbedded into the surface of the vertical stabilizer deicing system; and detect the presence of ice on the surface of the boots, the proper functioning of the boots, and the presence of residual ice. The commenter believes that this system would allow FAA to learn more about the icing environment as it relates to the affected airplanes.

7. An ice detection system is unnecessary because the pilot would use the visual cues to detect ice and could then activate the deicing system. This would make the need for an ice detection system unnecessary.

8. Since the pilot is aware of the ice prior to the ice detection alert, the system is unnecessary, expensive, and a waste of money.

The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) has established an Ice Protection Harmonization Working Group (IPHWG). One of the areas this group is currently studying is the safety impact of having ice protection systems incorporated on aircraft. Because this study is ongoing and the IPHWG has not made any recommendations, we have determined not to require the ice detection system in this AD. We will evaluate the information that the IPHWG provides at the conclusion of the study to determine whether we should initiate rulemaking regarding this subject. The Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes would be among many aircraft evaluated to determine whether an ice detection system should be incorporated. The AD requirements for the automatic autopilot disconnect system and trim-in-motion alert system provide protection in the event of undetected, dangerous ice accretions. We determined that the modifications required by this AD, including the automatic autopilot disconnect system and trim-in-motion alert system, will provide the operators the necessary warning and equipment to safely operate their airplanes.

We excluded the ice detection system requirement from the AD.

One commenter questions why FAA did not give the option (as a method of accomplishing the AD) of advancing the power (engine torque) to as high as possible ( i.e. , in excess of 150 percent, which occurred in another type design airplane). This idea is based on the commenter's operating experience in recovering from a stall during an icing-related incident.

We do not concur. When the engine torque is advanced over 100 percent, the thrust of the propeller may be reduced because of the flow separation of portions of the blade. Instead of an increase in thrust, a reduction in overall thrust is likely. Airflow over the wing in the propwash can be degraded. FAA analysis of the incident that the commenter refers to shows that the airplane recovery occurred when the flaps were extended from the cruise configuration to 15 degrees and when the angle of attack was decreased. The flow over the wing returned, control of the airplane was regained, and the roll attitude stabilized.

We are not changing the AD as a result of this comment.

One commenter states that (1) AD's are only for defects in design or potential equipment failures; and (2) proceeding with the AD would be a misuse of the AD process.

We do not concur. An AD is the vehicle that FAA uses to mandate modifications, inspections, etc., in order to correct an unsafe condition on products (airplanes). That condition could be caused by airplane usage (fatigue), quality control, design, maintenance problems (where the procedures to accomplish such maintenance are not available to the field or the current maintenance procedures are not meeting the necessary safety level), or any other problem. The FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists in the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes when utilized in icing conditions, and that the airplane modifications specified in the AD are necessary to correct this unsafe condition. We are not using this AD to improve the level of safety or upgrade the certification level of the Mitsubishi MU-2B airplanes.

We are not changing the AD as a result of these comments.

Several commenters suggest that other airplane models (specifically Raytheon models) are more susceptible to problems while operating in icing conditions than the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes. The commenters believe FAA should withdraw the NPRM for this reason.

The FAA does not concur that the NPRM should be withdrawn because of the statement that other airplanes are more susceptible to problems while operating in icing conditions. The FAA analyzes the service history and design of each specific airplane make and model type design before taking AD action. Based on the service history and design of the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes, FAA has determined that AD action is necessary. This does not mean that FAA will not take AD action on any other type design airplanes or that the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes are being singled out from other type design airplanes. The FAA will continue to analyze the service history and design of each specific airplane make and model type design, and initiate and implement any appropriate rulemaking action.

We are not changing the AD as a result of these comments.

One commenter objects to the stated purpose and provisions specified in the NPRM. In particular, the commenter states that there is no evidence that the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes are susceptible to undetectable ice accumulation.

The FAA does not concur. In one reported incident of undetectable ice accumulation on one of the affected airplanes, a pilot in 14 CFR part 135 operations experienced a 20-knot decrease in airspeed and a change of positive climb rate to a descent. After examining the airplane surfaces, the crew saw no evidence of ice and instead only saw a shiny appearance on the leading edge of the wing. At this time, the crew operated the deicing boots and witnessed approximately 1-inch of ice shedding from the leading edge of the wing. Airplane performance was restored to the level that existed before the airplane entered the icing condition and before operation of the deicing boots. The bulk of the ice was on the surface of the boots and not the unprotected areas of the fuselage or the propellers. Transparent (clear) ice can result from high liquid water conditions, high airspeed, static air temperatures just below freezing, large droplets, or a combination of any of these conditions. The Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes have shown flight characteristics in icing conditions with clear ice formation that are hazardous. These hazards may be attributed to a decreased stall angle, suddenness and the degree of roll upset, a subsequent rapid increase in airspeed, the consequent loss of control after ice accumulation, and difficulty in recovering from any of the above problems. We determined that the modifications required by this AD, including the automatic autopilot disconnect system and trim-in-motion alert system, will provide the operators the necessary warning and equipment to safely operate their airplanes.

We are not changing the AD as a result of this comment.

One commenter states that, of the 700 Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes in service, over 100 have been involved in incidents/accidents.

The FAA infers from this that the commenter agrees with and supports the AD.

We are not changing the AD as a result of this comment.

Several commenters state that, since the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes “passed all the tests” in the FFFSCR, issuing an AD requiring modifications would be contrary to the FFRSCR. The commenters do not believe FAA should issue the AD because the airplane meets the appropriate certification regulations.

We do not concur. The FFFSCR specifically addressed flight into icing conditions. The tests were not pass/fail situations. The FFFSCR specifies that several accidents have occurred, and that future accidents/incidents may be prevented by modifications to the airplane design and by additional training to enhance the pilot's ability to manage the airplane in adverse operating conditions.

As discussed previously, an AD is the vehicle that FAA uses to correct unsafe conditions in type design products. A product that meets all certification requirements can still be found to have an unsafe condition that could exist or develop; also, an unsafe condition does not necessarily exist for products that do not meet certification requirements. Whether a product is in compliance with other regulations is unrelated to whether AD action should be taken on that product.

We are not changing the AD as a result of these comments.

What Is the Commenter's Concern?

One commenter states that the unsafe condition referenced in this AD is already addressed by current AD's that apply to Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes:

• One that requires training for the pilots of the affected airplanes;

• One that requires incorporating a minimum speed limitation; and

• One that addresses actions to take when flying into severe icing.

For this reason, the commenter requests that FAA withdraw the NPRM.

We do not concur. The current AD's that address severe icing and a minimum speed limitation contain information that applies to many type design airplanes, not just the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes. Pilot training and system modifications are specific to the type design of the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes. The FFFSCR specifies that several accidents have occurred, and that future accidents/incidents may be prevented by modifications to the airplane design and by additional training to enhance the pilot's ability to manage the airplane in adverse operating conditions. We have determined that both systems modifications and pilot training are needed to prevent future icing incidents on the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes. Training issues were addressed in AD 97-20-14, Amendment 39-10150 (62 FR 51594, October 2, 1997). The FAA will continue to monitor the need for future training and will take appropriate action. This AD addresses the systems modifications.

We are not changing the AD as a result of this comment.

Several commenters oppose the incorporation of a trim-in-motion system. The commenters state that the trim-in-motion system will annunciate during normal trim activation and the pilot will hear the trim-in-motion alert continuously and “tune it out.” The commenters would like FAA to eliminate the trim-in-motion system requirement.

We do not concur. The trim-in-motion system for the MU-2B series airplanes annunciates only after the trim wheel has rotated more than 30 degrees in the nose-up direction when the flaps are retracted. This should eliminate “nuisance alerts”.

We are not changing the AD as a result of these comments.

Several commenters oppose the incorporation of an automatic autopilot disconnect. The commenters express the following concerns:

1. The automatic autopilot disconnect is dangerous in that the autopilot could become disconnected in high workload conditions.

2. The Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane is a one-pilot airplane and the autopilot provides a useful function as a workload reliever.

3. The automatic autopilot disconnect is unnecessary because no accidents have occurred since the AD was issued that required a minimum 180 knot indicated airspeed (KIAS). The commenters would like FAA to eliminate the automatic autopilot disconnect requirement.

4. The autopilot would disconnect at a speed slightly faster than the best rate of climb speed for certain weight and altitude combinations. The commenters state that icing rarely occurs above 25,000 feet. This is the desired altitude in certain weather conditions where the slowest airspeeds are required for the best rate of climb. The commenters believe that a hazardous situation would exist if the pilot were to hand fly the airplane to achieve the best rate of climb instead of utilizing the autopilot.

The following presents FAA's response to each of the concerns regarding the automatic autopilot disconnect:

1. We concur that high workload conditions exist. However, the objective of the automatic autopilot disconnect is to prevent the autopilot from applying nose-up elevator control with pitch trim until the airplane stalls. When implemented, the pilot will be forced to take control of the airplane before the autopilot applies pitch control in the full trimmed nose-up direction. If the autopilot controls the airplane into a stall, then the chance of a recovery is unlikely. The automatic autopilot disconnect would, prior to a stall condition, give control to the pilot and allow detection and prevention of a stall. The automatic autopilot disconnects well below the cruise speed and just above the stall speed.

2. We concur that the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane is a single-pilot airplane and the autopilot provides a useful function as a workload reliever. The airplane was certificated without the autopilot and is considered optional equipment. Any pilot of this aircraft should be able to handle situations without the use of the autopilot the same as with the autopilot. As discussed above, the automatic disconnect function activates at a speed that provides increased margin to contaminated stall. This places the pilot in situations where the continued reliance on the autopilot may mask natural stall warnings prior to stall and upset.

3. We do not concur with the commenter that no accidents have occurred since the AD was issued to require a minimum 180 KIAS in icing conditions, and therefore the automatic autopilot disconnect is unnecessary. Since 1993 when the 180 KIAS minimum speed was established, an airplane upset occurred in an accident in Malad City, Utah. Speeds were lower than 180 KIAS.

4. We do not concur that a hazardous situation would exist if the pilot would hand fly the airplane at altitudes above 25,000 feet. Cumulonimbus clouds account for the icing above 25,000 feet. These clouds contain some of the most severe forms of icing conditions. Icing accrued at lower altitudes may easily remain on the airfoil and then the airplane could carry this ice to higher altitudes. As discussed earlier, these airplanes were certificated without the autopilot and the autopilot is considered optional equipment. Any pilot of this aircraft should be able to handle situations without the use of the autopilot the same as with the autopilot.

We are not changing the AD as a result of these comments.

The commenters believe that requiring either the engine continuous-duty ignition replacement system or the auto-ignition (re-light) system is acceptable. The commenters state that requiring both is redundant and FAA has not provided justification for requiring both.

We concur that both of these systems should not be required. Based upon the operating record of other airplanes equipped with the auto-ignition (re-light) system, FAA believes that this system is the best for restoring engine power because:

• Manual selection of the ignition after ice detection depends on the pilot seeing the ice and knowing when the airplane is no longer in a condition conducive to flameout; and

• Use of the engine continuous-duty ignition replacement system for extended periods of time incurs repetitive igniter replacement costs. The use of the auto-ignition (re-light) system is independent of pilot ice detection. This system is also energized for a short period of time so it incurs less operating cost.

We excluded the requirement of incorporating an engine continuous-duty ignition replacement system.

Several commenters question why FAA never contacted “experienced” MU-2B series airplane operators.

We contacted several MU-2B series airplane operators to seek information on possible upsets or near upsets in icing conditions. Among these were pilots in 14 CFR part 91 and part 135 operations.

We are not changing the AD as a result of these comments.

Several commenters believe that most of the MU-2B series airplane accidents are unrelated to the subject matter of this AD. The commenters state that FAA should not take AD action because the accidents were related to pilot error or judgement. Some of the commenters state that, when you take the pilot error or judgement issues away, there are not enough accidents to warrant AD action.

We do not concur. We determined that human error has not accounted for all accidents and incidents involving MU-2B series airplanes. The type and severity of the icing conditions in these accidents has resulted in fatalities to the occupants of these MU-2B series airplanes. This is because they were in uncontrolled flight into terrain from altitudes of 16,000 feet to 22,000 feet. Accidents are not a prerequisite for issuing an AD. The only prerequisite is an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop in other airplanes of the same type design.

We are not changing the AD as a result of these comments.

One commenter states that the AD is not justified because the pilots of the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes are flying outside the design limits of the airplane.

We do not concur. The FAA does not have evidence of the affected airplanes being flown outside of the design limits up to the moment of loss of control.

We are not changing the AD as a result of this comment.

One commenter states that AD action is unnecessary because the MU-2B series airplanes passed all the tests during the FFFSCR. Another commenter states that the MU-2B airplanes passed all the tests during the special certification review (SCR) that FAA performed in 1984.

We do not concur. The purpose of the 1984 SCR was for the overall aspects of the airplane, and was not specific to icing-related problems. The 1996 FFFSCR specifically addressed flight into icing conditions. The tests during this FFFSCR were not pass/fail situations. The final report of the FFFSCR includes all the findings and conclusions and makes 14 different recommendations, including equipment and training recommendations.

We are not changing the AD as a result of these comments.

One commenter states that the one key to exiting icing conditions is power. The commenter requests that FAA focus on increasing power instead of system modifications.

We do not concur. While power is a key when a pilot immediately exits icing conditions, airfoil lift and stall aerodynamics are most significant in icing conditions. The significant aerodynamic characteristics for the MU-2B series airplanes are the stall angle of attack and lift coefficient with ice accretion. These could lead to increased drag, which may result in an insufficient amount of engine power (thrust) available to exit the icing conditions. The level of thrust necessary to overcome all icing conditions could be more than the MU-2B series airplanes can provide. Nominal changes in propeller effectiveness with ice accretion decrease propeller performance.

We are not changing the AD as a result of this comment.

One commenter states that the icing accident statistics of other airplanes are higher than the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes. The commenter specifically calls out the statistics for the Cessna Model 421 airplanes. Another commenter states that FAA should require similar actions on the Commander Model 114 airplanes.

The Cessna Model 421 airplanes and the Commander Model 114 airplanes are a different type design to that of the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes. The FAA looks at the service history and design of each particular aircraft to determine whether an unsafe condition exists or is likely to develop, and AD action is necessary. The FAA will issue an AD if it determines that similar action needs to be taken on any other type design aircraft.

We are not changing the AD as a result of these comments.

One commenter states that the MU-2B series airplanes attract operators who do not have the financial strength to properly maintain their aircraft and train their crews. The commenter indicates that this is due to the affected airplanes being market bargains because of factors such as the issuance of the NPRM and the mandatory training AD against the MU-2B series airplanes. The FAA infers that the commenter believes the AD is only necessary to those operators without proper financial resources.

The FAA does not concur. The unsafe condition exists when the airplane is flying in icing conditions. The FAA initiates AD action based only on whether an unsafe condition exists or could develop on type design aircraft. The market value of the affected airplanes or the financial status of the owners/operators of those airplanes does not enter into FAA's decision.

We are not changing the AD as a result of this comment.

Several commenters question the severity of the icing problems found during the tanker testing conducted with the FFFSCR. The commenters state that the AD is not necessary because they believe this testing is the primary justification for the AD.

We do not concur. The tanker testing was intended to examine only the ice accretion aft of the active portion of the deicing boots. This was where the ice accretion was found on the ATR airplane in the Roselawn accident. During this testing, only small portions of the airplane were exposed to the icing cloud at any particular time because the icing effect could not be accomplished simultaneously on all airplane surfaces located behind the tanker.

The entire natural icing environment cannot be replicated using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). This environment also cannot be sampled during flight testing in natural icing conditions. Each condition is unique and variable. If you then account for airplane design, the chances for developing the most severe ice shape for any one aerodynamic characteristic is difficult.

This information reveals that neither the testing nor other tools are able to address all possible hazardous conditions on the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes. The FAA has determined that the systems modifications required by this AD will give the pilot the best chance of maintaining control of the airplane in icing conditions.

We are not changing the AD as a result of these comments.

Several commenters believe that FAA yielded to congressional pressures in conducting the FFFSCR and issuing the NPRM. These commenters state that the FFFSCR was precipitated by a letter from a U.S. congressman relating to an accident in Zwingle, Iowa. The MU-2B series airplane in this accident experienced an uncontained propeller blade failure and then struck a silo. The commenters believe the AD is unnecessary and FAA is taking action because of politics.

Although it was part of the information we reviewed when deciding to conduct the FFFSCR, the congressional letter was not the determining factor. The FAA was already analyzing the service history of the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes. The decision to issue the NPRM was based on:

• The conclusions made from the FFFSCR;

• The review of the affected airplanes' service history; and -

• The testing and approval of the system modifications included in the NPRM.

Our analysis of the situation does not link the Iowa accident referenced in the congressman's letter to the icing problems of the MU-2B series airplanes.

We are not changing the AD as a result of these comments.

Several commenters addresss the economic impact caused by this AD and recent AD's against the MU-2B airplanes, including:

1. The AD's are senseless and have gone beyond reason;

2. The apparent bending of the regulatory rules against the MU-2B series airplanes has resulted in higher insurance premiums, higher parts costs, and decreased aircraft values; and

3. The NPRM, if adopted as a final rule, will cost each owner/operator about $27,000.

Our response to each concern follows:

1. We do not concur. The FAA presumes that the commenters are referring to the NPRM and other AD's written against the MU-2B series airplanes. Each AD, including the NPRM, must be justified through the identification of an unsafe condition. The FAA followed all regulatory processes for the AD's, including the NPRM, against the affected airplanes;

2. The FAA does not concur. As stated above, FAA followed all regulatory processes for the AD's, including the NPRM, against the affected airplanes; and

3. The FAA concurs that the NPRM as written would cost approximately $27,000 per airplane. The final rule will actually cost less than that proposed in the NPRM since the requirement for the ice detection system modification and the engine continuous-duty ignition replacement system modification are excluded. The FAA completed a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis on the NPRM. This analysis included the above modifications. The FAA has determined that the safety problems that would exist if this AD was not required outweigh the negative cost impact of this AD upon the public.

We Are not changing the AD as a result of these comments.

Several commenters state that the installations specified in the NPRM are product improvements and do not address a true unsafe condition. The commenters indicate that Mitsubishi developed the modifications and issued the service bulletins before the FFFSCR.

Another commenter believes that FAA will use this AD as an example in mandating other product improvements in equipment such as global positioning systems (GPS) and stormscopes.

We concur that a few of the modifications were developed prior to the FFFSCR. Since FAA had not mandated these modifications through an AD, they could have been considered product improvements at that time. Since that time, FAA performed the FFFSCR; determined that an unsafe condition exists and an AD should be issued; and analyzed the modifications that Mitsubishi developed. Part of addressing the unsafe condition is incorporating the modifications that were developed prior to the FFFSCR. The FAA can only mandate modifications that exist through an AD. An unsafe condition must be demonstrated for any AD action.

We are not changing the AD as a result of these comments.

One commenter states that the following should be required when operating MU-2B series airplanes under 14 CFR part 135:

1. The pilot-in-charge should have a type rating; and

2. All Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes should have a copilot.

We do not concur with these concerns for the following reasons:

1. During the special certification review performed in 1984, FAA determined that a type rating was not necessary. Nothing has changed to warrant the need for a type rating.

2. Mandating a copilot in 14 CFR part 135 operations is beyond the scope of AD action. The FAA would need to make a rulemaking change to the specific regulation.

We are not changing the AD as a result of these comments.

Several commenters request that the FAA delete the requirement to install a placard to require a negative torque sensing (NTS) check and propeller feather valve check as part of the Normal Checklist Procedures. The commenters state that confusion could be generated through the installation of such a large placard on the instrument panel.

We concur that a placard is not the best way of accomplishing this action. These checks are currently part of the Normal Checklist Procedures Section of the AFM. The FAA encourages accomplishment of all actions specified in this section. However, the only mandatory actions in the AFM are those included in the Limitations Section.

Mandating these checks as part of an addition to the Limitations Section of the AFM would impose actions that go beyond the scope of what was already proposed in the NPRM. If our analysis of the continued airworthiness of the affected airplanes shows that it is necessary to mandate these actions, we may initiate further rulemaking to require this information to become part of the Limitations Section of the AFM.

We excluded the placard requirement from the AD.

After reviewing all available information related to the subject presented above, we have determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for the changes described above and minor editorial corrections.

We have determined that the addition and 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 compliance time of this AD is within the next 12 calendar months after the effective date.

We have determined that the compliance time of this AD should be specified in calendar time instead of hours time-in-service. Although the condition addressed by this AD is unsafe while the airplane is in flight, the condition is not a result of repetitive airplane operation. The potential for the unsafe condition occurring is the same on the first flight as it is for subsequent flights. The compliance time of “12 calendar months after the effective date of this AD” will not inadvertently ground airplanes and will assure that all owners/operators of the affected airplanes accomplish this action in a reasonable time period.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 was enacted by Congress to assure that small entities are not unnecessarily or disproportionately burdened by government regulations. This Act establishes “as principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve this principle, the Act requires agencies to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions. The Act covers a wide range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” If the determination is that it will, the agency must prepare a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis as described in the Act. However, if after a review for a proposed or final rule, an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the Act provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. A statement providing the factual basis for this determination must be included in the Docket file, and the reasoning should be clear.

The FAA has determined that this AD will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. After a review of alternatives, as required by section 603(c) of the Act, this AD is the least costly alternative to reduce the possibility of an unsafe condition on Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes when operating in icing conditions.

The entities affected by this AD are believed to be mostly in Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 4522, “Air Transportation, Nonscheduled.” Under the Small Business Administration (SBA), Table of Size Standards, March 1, 1996, an entity in SIC 4522 would be a small business if it has fewer than 1,500 employees.

The U.S. Registered Aircraft Database shows approximately 200 operators of Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes in the United States, but that only 13 entities operate 2 or more of these airplanes. Ownership of more than 1 MU-2B series airplane is believed to be limited to 5 percent of the affected aircraft owners. Only one of these operators had 10 or more of these airplanes. The total number of owners operating MU-2B series airplanes is in the range of 320 to 340, and the names of the owners suggest that the majority of these airplanes are operated by small entities. Consequently, this AD is likely to affect a substantial number of small entities.

The initial cost for each owner/operator of an MU-2B series airplane is estimated to be approximately $25,728. Reported usage rates of 32 to 33 hours per month (almost 400 hours per year) indicate that an airplane will be subject to a total of four inspections per year. At a nominal inspection time of 1 workhour per inspection and labor cost of $60 per workhour, the annual inspection costs will be approximately $240 per airplane. These estimates include costs for the associated record keeping. A reasonable range of costs arising from this AD is suggested in the following table:

The remaining life for an affected airplane will depend on the demand for the types of service provided (such as cargo delivery and medical evacuation), as well as the difference in cost between providing this service with the MU-2B series airplanes and the cost of using alternative aircraft or modes of transportation. According to the manufacturer, detailed inspections show that deterioration of the airframes has been quite small, so that a 20-year life expectancy may be a reasonable presumption. In addition, the manufacturer acknowledged recent instances of retired MU-2B series airplanes being returned to service. These considerations suggest that it is reasonable to presume a relatively long expected life for many of the MU-2B series airplanes, so that the annualized cost per affected aircraft may average less than $5,000.

With an average annual cost per airplane in the range of $3,200 to $5,400 (consistent with 10 to 20 years of remaining life and capital costs of 10 to 15 percent per year), the present value of the total cost will be approximately $27,000 per airplane. The total annualized cost of this AD for the U.S. fleet will be in the range of $1 million (320 × $3,200 = $1,024,000) to $1.8 million (340 × $5,400 = $1,836,000). The present discounted value of total costs imposed by this AD are in the range of $8.6 million to $9.4 million. Market values for the affected airplanes are believed to be in the range of $300,000 to $800,000, depending on the airplane's age, condition, and installed equipment. Therefore, the AD costs will be about 3.5 percent to 9 percent (($27,000 / $800,000) × 100% = 3.5% to ($27,000 / $300,000) × 100% = 9%) of the market value of the airplane. Because the costs imposed by this AD will be proportionately higher for less expensive airplanes, it is likely that they will also be proportionately higher for smaller, less financially strong operators than for larger operators.

In developing the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, several alternatives to this AD were considered. The alternatives included:

Take no action, including not issuing this AD.

The FAA's Position on Option No. 1: Taking no action will permit the continuation of current conditions that could result in a repeat of icing-related accidents similar to those that have occurred over the past 10 years.

Require additional training.

The FAA's Position on Option No. 2: The FAA addressed the training issue in AD 97-20-14, Amendment 39-39-10150 (62 FR 51594). This AD requires periodic training for the pilots and crew flying any Mitsubishi MU-2 series airplane. The training provides information relative to flight into possible or forecast icing conditions. This training should assist in reducing future ice-related accidents for the affected airplanes.

Issue AD action to restrict the MU-2B series airplanes operators from flight into known or suspected icing conditions.

The FAA's Position on Option No. 3: The FAA has determined that restricting flight into known or suspected icing conditions will not eliminate inadvertent encounters with icing conditions. Such restrictions may have little effect on flying into unforecast icing conditions with inoperable anti-ice equipment and insufficient flight planning. Unknown forecast conditions and insufficient flight planning contributed to two of the accidents (and 13 of the 14 fatalities) cited. In addition, such a restriction will impose costs on owners/operators because the airplanes will be prevented from making flights, despite being outfitted with anti-ice equipment.

Require the actions in this AD.

The FAA's Position on Option No. 4: The FAA has determined that requiring the modifications in this AD will help prevent undetected failure conditions and provide a timely warning prior to upset. This warning will enable the pilot to manually control the airplane before an unsafe condition develops.

The FAA has determined that this AD is likely to have benefits in excess of costs and is not aware of a less costly alternative that will be likely to address the unsafe condition addressed in this AD.

A copy of the complete Regulatory Flexibility Analysis may be obtained from FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri .

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, FAA determines that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

The FAA has determined 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) Could have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We have placed a copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action in the Rules Docket. You may obtain a copy of it at 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 all Airbus Model A319, A320, A321, A330, and A340 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 14, 1999 (64 FR 37915). That action proposed to require repetitive inspections to detect missing and incorrectly installed parts of the footrest actuator assembly, and replacement of discrepant parts with new parts. That AD also would provide for optional 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.

1. The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) references All Operator Telex (AOT) 25-14 (for Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes) and AOT 25-13 (for Model A330 and A340 series airplanes); both dated December 17, 1998, as the appropriate sources of service information for accomplishment of the actions specified by paragraph (a) of the NPRM. Instead, this amendment requires that the actions specified by that paragraph be accomplished in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1220 and A320-25-1225, both dated November 19, 1999 (for Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes); A330-25-3105, dated October 22, 1999, and A330-25-3110, dated December 23, 1999 (for Model A330 series airplanes); and A340-25-4131, dated October 22, 1999, and A340-25-4136, dated December 23, 1999 (for Model A340 series airplanes); as applicable. The inspection procedures specified by those service bulletins are similar to the procedures specified by AOT 25-13 and 25-14; however, the service bulletins also include graphics to show the areas of inspection and replacement (repair). Note 2 has been added to this AD to give credit to operators for accomplishment of the actions specified in the AOT's prior to the effective date of this AD.

2. Note 4 of the proposed rule has been renumbered as NOTE 6 in the final rule, and two references to French airworthiness directives have been changed to reflect later revision numbers.

The Air Transport Association (ATA) of America states that one of its members concurs with the proposal and offers no further comments.

• One commenter states that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1225 includes procedures for the installation of a new footrest actuator, Modification 28472, and that such a modification should be considered terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

The FAA acknowledges the commenter's request and has determined that the installation of Modification 28472 during production or the accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-25-1225, or the installation of Modification 47376 during production or the accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-25-3110 or A340-25-4136, constitutes optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this AD. In light of this, the FAA has added a new paragraph (c) to the final rule to include this new option.

• Another commenter states that it is in the process of issuing a request for funding to remove the footrest from the seat, and that “it is our expectation that this will be terminating action.”

The FAA acknowledges the commenter's statement and points out that paragraph (b) of the proposed rule provides for optional terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of this AD. Therefore, no change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter states that operators were notified of a proposed rule mandating repetitive inspections of the cockpit footrest actuator assembly. The first inspection (detailed visual) was required at 500 flight hours after the effective date of the proposed AD, followed by a repeat inspection at intervals not to exceed 15 months. The commenter also states that AOT 25-14, dated December 17, 1998, specifies a production quality control check and that the manufacturer issued two messages to specify that all airplanes undergoing production quality checks may take credit for accomplishing the inspections specified at 500 flight hours. For this reason, the commenter requests that all airplanes that have accomplished such a check be excluded from the detailed visual inspection within 500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, and only be required to accomplish that inspection at intervals not to exceed 15 months. The commenter considers that such a policy will not impair the safety of the airplanes.

The FAA concurs and considers that such a check during production would detect any discrepancy, such as a missing or broken retaining clip, and preclude the necessity for the initial inspection at 500 flight hours. For that reason, Note 3 , preceding paragraph (a) of this AD, has been added to provide credit for prior accomplishment of the initial detailed visual inspection required by that paragraph.

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 described previously. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

The FAA estimates that 208 Model A319, A320, A321, A330, and A340 series airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $37,440, or $180 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 .

History

On Friday, February 18, 2000, the FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 71 to modify Class D airspace and Class E airspace and create Class E airspace at Belleville, IL (65 FR 8322). The proposal was to modify controlled airspace extending upward from the surface to contain Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations in controlled airspace during portions of the terminal operation and while transiting between the enroute and terminal environments. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received. Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, Class E airspace areas designated as extensions to a Class D airspace area are published in paragraph 6004, and Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9G dated September 1, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace designation and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies Class D airspace and Class E airspace and creates Class E airspace at Belleville, IL, to accommodate aircraft executing instrument flight procedures into and out of Scott AFB/MidAmerican Airport. The area will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation—(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) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

On Friday, February 18, 2000, the FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 71 to modify Class D airspace and Class E airspace at Rapid City, SD, and modify Class D airspace at Rapid City, Ellsworth AFB, SD (65 FR 8321). The proposal was to modify controlled airspace extending upward from the surface to contain Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations in controlled airspace during portions of the terminal operation and while transiting between the enroute and terminal environments. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received. Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, Class E airspace areas designated as extensions to a Class D airspace area are published in paragraph 6004, and Class E airspace designated as surface areas are published in paragraph 6002, of FAA Order 7400.9G dated September 1, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace designations and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies Class D airspace and Class E airspace at Rapid City, SD, and Modifies Class D airspace at Rapid City, Ellsworth AFB, SD, to accommodate aircraft executing instrument flight procedures into and out Rapid City Regional Airport and Ellsworth AFB. The area will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; is not a significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

On Tuesday, January 19, 1999, the FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 71 to modify Class E airspace at Yankton, SD (64 FR 2864). The proposal was to increase the effective hours of operation from one (1) hour per day to twenty-four (24) hours per day to accommodate air carrier operations for Chan Gurney Municipal Airport. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received. Class E airspace areas designated as a surface area for an airport published in paragraph 6002 of FAA Order 7400.9G dated September 1, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modified Class E airspace at Yankton, SD, by amending the hours of operation of the Class E airspace for Chan Gurney Municipal Airport. The area will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation—(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) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

On Friday, February 18, 2000, the FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 71 to modify Class E airspace at Ely, MN (65 FR 8324). The proposal was to modify controlled airspace extending upward from the surface to contain Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations in controlled airspace during portions of the terminal operation and while transiting between the enroute and terminal environments. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received. Class E airspace designated as surface areas are published in paragraph 6002, and Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9G dated September 1, 1999, and effective September 16, 1999, which is incorporated by references in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies Class E airspace at Ely, MN, to accommodate aircraft executing instrument flight procedures into and out Ely Municipal Airport. The area will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation—(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) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The PBGC's regulations prescribe actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for valuing and paying plan benefits of terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets.

Three sets of interest assumptions are prescribed: (1) a set for the valuation of benefits for allocation purposes under section 4044 (found in Appendix B to Part 4044), (2) a set for the PBGC to use to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine lump-sum amounts to be paid by the PBGC (found in Appendix B to Part 4022), and (3) a set for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using the PBGC's historical methodology (found in Appendix C to Part 4022). (See the PBGC's two final rules published March 17, 2000, in the Federal Register (at 65 FR 14752 and 14753). Effective May 1, 2000, these rules changed how the interest assumptions are used and where they are set forth in the PBGC's regulations.)

Accordingly, this amendment (1) adds to Appendix B to Part 4044 the interest assumptions for valuing benefits for allocation purposes in plans with valuation dates during June 2000, (2) adds to Appendix B to Part 4022 the interest assumptions for the PBGC to use for its own lump-sum payments in plans with valuation dates during June 2000, and (3) adds to Appendix C to Part 4022 the interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using the PBGC's historical methodology for valuation dates during June 2000.

For valuation of benefits for allocation purposes, the interest assumptions that the PBGC will use (set forth in Appendix B to part 4044) will be 7.10 percent for the first 25 years following the valuation date and 6.25 percent thereafter. These interest assumptions represent an increase (from those in effect for May 2000) of 0.10 percent for the first 25 years following the valuation date and are otherwise unchanged.

The interest assumptions that the PBGC will use for its own lump-sum payments (set forth in Appendix B to part 4022) will be 5.25 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status, 4.50 percent during the seven-year period directly preceding the benefit's placement in pay status, and 4.00 percent during any other years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. These interest assumptions are unchanged from those in effect for May 2000.

For private-sector payments, the interest assumptions (set forth in Appendix C to part 4022) will be the same as those used by the PBGC for determining and paying lump sums (set forth in Appendix B to part 4022).

The PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect, as accurately as possible, current market conditions.

Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the valuation and payment of benefits in plans with valuation dates during June 2000, the PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.

The PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.

Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. This rule is being promulgated without an NPRM due to the short time frame allowed between the submission of the request by the U.S. Army and the date of the event.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . This rule should be made effective in less than 30 days due to the short time frame allowed between the submission of the request by the U.S. Army and the date of the event.

On March 6, 2000, the Department of Army Rock Island Arsenal requested a temporary change to the operation of the Rock Island Railroad & Highway Drawbridge across the Upper Mississippi River, Mile 482.9 at Rock Island, Illinois. The Rock Island Railroad Drawbridge navigation span has a vertical clearance of 23.8 feet above normal pool in the closed-to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and recreational watercraft. Presently, the draw opens on signal for passage of river traffic. The Rock Island Arsenal requested the drawbridge be permitted to remain closed-to-navigation from 8 a.m. until 10 a.m. on May 14, 2000. During this time, a foot race will cross the bridge. This temporary drawbridge operation regulation has been coordinated with the commercial waterway operators. No objections to the proposed temporary rule were raised.

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).

The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this temporary rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This is because river traffic is not likely to be delayed more than 2 hours.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

This rule will be in effect for only 2 hours early in the day and the Coast Guard expects the impact of this action to be minimal. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Any individual that qualifies or, believes he or she qualifies as a small entity and requires assistance with the provisions of this rule, may contact Mr. Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge Administrator, Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at (314) 539-3900, extension 378.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those unfunded mandate costs. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate.

This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph (32), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. Promulgation of changes to drawbridge regulations has been found not to have significant effect on the human environment. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES .

As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553, the Coast Guard did not publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM and for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Any delay in implementing this rule would be contrary to the public interest since immediate action is needed to close a portion of the Chelsea River and protect the maritime public from the hazards associated with bridge repair activities.

The Chelsea Street Bridge over the Chelsea River, Chelsea, MA, requires repairs. During the repair evolution, barges will be moored in the center of the channel. Barge placement requires the closure of the waterway to ensure vessel safety during repairs to the bridge fender system.

This regulation establishes a safety zone in all waters of the Chelsea River 100 yards upstream and 100 yards downstream from the centerline of the Chelsea Street Bridge. This safety zone prohibits entry into or movement within this portion of the Chelsea River. In an effort to maximize commerce during the channel closures, waterway user input was solicited at a March 9, 2000 meeting hosted by Marine Safety Office Boston. The meeting was attended by 13 stakeholders. The nature of the repair work to be conducted requires low tide conditions. The Coast Guard was able to balance this need with community demands through the aforementioned open forum, which arrived at a group consensus between marine operators, the bridge owner, construction contractor, and harbor pilots. A current safety zone under 33 CFR 165.120 closes this same channel portion to vessels over 630.5 feet between sunset and sunrise. Therefore, the group, based on the contractor's recommendation, agreed upon the nightly closures. The duration of the safety zone will be from Tuesday, May 30, 2000 through Saturday, June 3, 2000, between 9 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. and from Monday, June 5, 2000 through Saturday, June 10, 2000 between 6 p.m. and 5 a.m. The Coast Guard will make Marine Safety Information Broadcasts informing mariners of this safety zone.

This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT)(44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This finding is based on the limited duration of the safety zone and limited commercial traffic expected in the area during the effective periods. Moreover, commercial operators will receive advance channel closure notification through Port Operators' Group meetings, Safety Marine Information Broadcasts and industry dissemination. The early notification will permit mariners ample time to alter voyage plans.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Coast Guard considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. “Small entities” may include (1) small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields and (2) governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Chelsea River from May 30, 2000 through June 3, 2000 between 9 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. and from June 5 through 10, 2000 between 6 p.m. and 5 a.m.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories before the effective period that will be widely available to users of the river; and the closures are based on waterway user input.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), the Coast Guard offered to assist small entities in understanding this final rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. The Coast Guard coordinated a March 9, 2000 meeting of Chelsea River users to gain input and feedback about the channel closures. The group agreed upon the schedule provided.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards.

The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

This proposal calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and has determined that this rule does not have federalism implications under that Order.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those unfunded mandate costs. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate.

This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this final rule and concluded that under Figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A Categorical Exclusion Determination is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.