Brucellosis is a contagious disease affecting animals and humans, caused by bacteria of the genus Brucella.

The brucellosis regulations, contained in 9 CFR part 78 (referred to below as the regulations), provide a system for classifying States or portions of States according to the rate of Brucella infection present and the general effectiveness of a brucellosis control and eradication program. The classifications are Class Free, Class A, Class B, and Class C. States or areas that do not meet the minimum standards for Class C are required to be placed under Federal quarantine.

The brucellosis Class Free classification is based on a finding of no known brucellosis in cattle for the 12 months preceding classification as Class Free. The Class C classification is for States or areas with the highest rate of brucellosis. Class A and Class B fall between these two extremes. Restrictions on moving cattle interstate become less stringent as a State approaches or achieves Class Free status.

The standards for the different classifications of States or areas entail (1) maintaining a cattle herd infection rate not to exceed a stated level during 12 consecutive months; (2) tracing back to the farm of origin and successfully closing a stated percentage of all brucellosis reactor cases found in the course of Market Cattle Identification (MCI) testing; (3) maintaining a surveillance system that includes testing of dairy herds, participation of all recognized slaughtering establishments in the MCI program, identification and monitoring of herds at high risk of infection (including herds adjacent to infected herds and herds from which infected animals have been sold or received), and having an individual herd plan in effect within a stated number of days after the herd owner is notified of the finding of brucellosis in a herd he or she owns; and (4) maintaining minimum procedural standards for administering the program.

Before the effective date of this interim rule, South Dakota was classified as a Class A State.

To attain and maintain Class Free status, a State or area must (1) remain free from field strain Brucella abortus infection for 12 consecutive months or longer; (2) trace back at least 90 percent of all brucellosis reactors found in the course of MCI testing to the farm of origin; (3) successfully close at least 95 percent of the MCI reactor cases traced to the farm of origin during the consecutive 12-month period immediately prior to the most recent anniversary of the date the State or area was classified Class Free; and (4) have a specified surveillance system, as described above, including an approved individual herd plan in effect within 15 days of locating the source herd or recipient herd.

The last brucellosis-infected cattle herd in South Dakota was released from quarantine in December of 1990. Since then, South Dakota has remained a Class A State due to the presence of a privately owned brucellosis-affected bison herd. An intensive plan for management of brucellosis within this affected herd was set forth in January of 1999, with a goal of releasing the herd from quarantine in November 2000. The herd was officially released from quarantine on October 31, 2000.

After reviewing the brucellosis program records for South Dakota, we have concluded that this State meets the standards for Class Free status. Therefore, we are removing South Dakota from the list of Class A States in § 78.41(b) and adding it to the list of Class Free States in § 78.41(a). This action relieves certain restrictions on moving cattle interstate from South Dakota.

Immediate action is warranted to remove unnecessary restrictions on the interstate movement of cattle from South Dakota. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

We will consider comments that are received within 60 days of publication of this rule in the Federal Register . After the comment period closes, we will publish another document in the Federal Register . The document will include a discussion of any comments we receive and any amendments we are making to the rule as a result of the comments.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review process required by Executive Order 12866.

Cattle moved interstate are moved for slaughter, for use as breeding stock, or for feeding. Changing the brucellosis status of South Dakota from Class A to Class Free will promote economic growth by reducing certain testing and other requirements governing the interstate movement of cattle from this State. Testing requirements for cattle moved interstate for immediate slaughter or to quarantined feedlots are not affected by this change. Cattle from certified brucellosis-free herds moving interstate are not affected by this change.

The groups affected by this action will be herd owners in South Dakota, as well as buyers and importers of cattle from this State.

There are an estimated 18,300 cattle herds in South Dakota that will be affected by this rule. About 99 percent of these are owned by small entities. Test-eligible cattle offered for sale interstate from other than certified-free herds must have a negative test under present Class A status regulations, but not under regulations concerning Class Free status. If such testing were distributed equally among all animals affected by this rule, Class Free status would save approximately $4 per head.

Therefore, we believe that changing the brucellosis status of South Dakota will not have a significant economic effect on the small entities affected by this interim rule.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)

This interim rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

This interim rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 747 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on June 15, 2000 (65 FR 37497). That action proposed to require inspections to detect cracking of the frame web, doubler, and inner chord of the forward edge frame of main entry door number 1, and various follow-on actions.

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

Three commenters support the proposed rule.

One commenter requests that the FAA revise paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of the proposed rule to reference Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2417, Revision 2, dated August 10, 2000, as an acceptable means of compliance for the actions required by those paragraphs. (Certain paragraphs of the proposed rule reference Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2417, Revision 1, dated July 23, 1998, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishment of the actions required by those paragraphs.)

Because paragraph (a) of the proposed rule does not reference a service bulletin but only specifies compliance times, the FAA infers that the commenter is requesting that the FAA revise paragraphs (b) and (c), as well as paragraphs (d) and (e), of the proposed rule. The FAA concurs with the commenter's request. Since the issuance of the proposed rule, the FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2417, Revision 2. The procedures in that service bulletin are substantially similar to those in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2417, Revision 1. Thus, paragraphs (b), (d), and (e) of this final rule have been revised accordingly to reference Revision 2 of the service bulletin, in addition to Revision 1, as an acceptable source of service information.

Also, Revision 2 of the service bulletin expands the area of inspection specified in Revision 1 of the service bulletin, to include detailed visual inspections of the aft side of the frame web (referred to as “Area 3” in the service bulletin), an area which is specified in paragraph (c) of the proposed rule and this final rule. Accordingly, paragraph (c) of this AD has been revised to note that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2417, Revision 2, dated August 10, 2000, may be used to accomplish the inspections specified in that paragraph. Also, “Note 5” of the proposed rule has been amended to clarify that the inspections in paragraph (c) of this AD are described in Revision 2 of the service bulletin.

Operators should note that, in addition to the detailed visual inspections of Area 3, the aft side of the frame web, that are specified in this AD, Revision 2 of the service bulletin also specifies detailed visual inspections of an “Area 2,” which comprises the forward and aft sides of the frame web and chord. The FAA has determined that, because inspections in this area were not specified in the proposed rule, to require inspections of this area would expand the scope of this AD, necessitating additional notice to the public and reopening of the comment period. Due to the criticality of the unsafe condition addressed in this AD, the FAA finds that to delay issuance of this final rule in this way would be inappropriate. Therefore, this AD does not require inspections of “Area 2,” as defined in the service bulletin. However, the FAA may consider further rulemaking to require inspections in this area.

One commenter, who otherwise supports the proposed rule, requests that the FAA revise paragraph (c) of the proposed rule to correct a typographical error in a reference to a doorstop location. In the Federal Register version of the AD, the sentence that is the subject of the commenter's request reads, “Perform a detailed visual inspection to detect cracking of the aft side of the forward edge door frame web of main entry door number 1 in the exposed area from doorstop # 2 [approximately water line (WL) 218] to doorstop # 2 (approximately WL 245) at body station 434.” Another commenter suggests that the references to doorstop locations be removed entirely from the paragraph.

The FAA acknowledges the typographical error pointed out by the first commenter. The FAA has determined that the WL references in the subject sentence of the proposed rule are correct, and the references to the doorstop locations are not necessary to adequately define the area that needs to be inspected. Therefore, the FAA concurs with the second commenter's suggestion to remove the references to doorstop locations. The affected sentence of paragraph (c) of this final rule has been revised to read, “Perform a detailed visual inspection to detect cracking of the aft side of the forward edge door frame web of main entry door number 1 in the exposed area from approximately [WL] 218 to approximately WL 245 at body station 434.”

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

There are approximately 685 Model 747 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 211 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

For Group 1 airplanes (approximately 191 U.S.-registered airplanes), it will take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspections, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of these inspections on U.S. operators of Group 1 airplanes is estimated to be $34,380, or $180 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

For Group 2 airplanes (approximately 20 U.S.-registered airplanes), it will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspections, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of these inspections on U.S. operators of Group 2 airplanes is estimated to be $2,400, or $120 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

For Group 1 airplanes (approximately 191 U.S.-registered airplanes), it will take approximately 128 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required repair, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this repair on U.S. operators of Group 1 airplanes is estimated to be $1,466,880, or $7,680 per airplane.

For Group 2 airplanes (approximately 20 U.S.-registered airplanes), it will take approximately 64 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required repair, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this repair on U.S. operators of Group 2 airplanes is estimated to be $76,800, or $3,840 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

Should an operator elect to accomplish the reinforcement of the door frame on a Group 1 airplane, it would take approximately 9 work hours per airplane to accomplish the reinforcement, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the reinforcement on a Group 1 airplane is estimated to be $540 per airplane.

Should an operator elect to accomplish the reinforcement of the door frame on a Group 2 airplane, it would take approximately 5 work hours per airplane to accomplish the reinforcement, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the reinforcement on a Group 2 airplane is estimated to be $300 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.

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 83-02-09, amendment 39-4549 (48 FR 6953, February 17, 1983); which is applicable to certain Boeing Model 707, 727C, and 727-100C airplanes; was published in the Federal Register on April 19, 2000 (65 FR 20924). The action proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the main cargo door skin and frames, and repair, if necessary, and to continue to provide for optional terminating modifications. The action also proposed to require new follow-on repetitive inspections of repaired or modified areas for certain airplanes.

Paragraph (e)(2) of the proposed rule states that it applies to airplanes on which the modification specified in Part II, Option 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-52A0079, Revision 4, dated June 19, 1981, Revision 5, dated June 17, 1983, or Revision 6, dated January 11, 1990, has been accomplished. However, Part II, Option 2, and the modification contained therein (which involves installation of over-sized, protruding-head rivets), appears only in Revision 6 of the service bulletin. Therefore, paragraph (e)(2) of this final rule has been revised to refer only to Revision 6 of the service bulletin. In addition, paragraph (e)(1) of this final rule has been revised to clarify that the modification referred to as “Part II, Option 1” in Revision 6 of the service bulletin is referred to as “Part II” of Revisions 4 and 5 of the service bulletin.

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

One commenter requests that the FAA revise the proposed rule to terminate the repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections specified in paragraph (e) of the proposed AD following installation of over-sized, protruding-head rivets in the skin of the main cargo door. The commenter points out that such installation of over-sized, protruding-head rivets in crack-free holes is one of two options for modification in Revision 5 of the service bulletin. The commenter states that eliminating the requirement for HFEC inspections would be consistent with the requirements of AD 91-06-06, amendment 39-6921 (56 FR 9612, March 7, 1991), which does not require repetitive HFEC inspections of the upper row of fuselage lap splices once protruding-head rivets have been installed.

The FAA concurs with the intent of the commenter's request and its rationale. However, the FAA infers that, though the commenter refers to Revision 5 of the service bulletin, the correct reference should be to Revision 6 of the service bulletin. (As noted above, Revision 5 does not describe the modification to which the commenter refers.) For airplanes modified per Part II, Option 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin, paragraph (e)(2) of the proposed rule specifies repetitive internal and external detailed visual and HFEC inspections of the modified area. The FAA has determined that the HFEC inspection is no longer necessary following accomplishment of the modification in Part II, Option 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Revision 6 of the service bulletin. Therefore, paragraph (e)(2) of this final rule has been revised to delete reference to an HFEC inspection.

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

There are approximately 50 Model 707 and 308 Model 727 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 1 Model 707 and 81 Model 727 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

The cost impact information in AD 83-02-09 inadvertently contained information relevant only to the X-ray inspection; however, since the detailed visual and eddy current inspections are also acceptable methods to detect cracking, this AD includes the estimated number of work hours necessary to accomplish any one of the three inspection methods. Additionally, the FAA has recently reviewed the figures it has used over the past several years in calculating the economic impact of AD activity. In order to account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $40 per work hour to $60 per work hour. The cost impact information, below, has been revised to reflect these changes.

Should an operator elect to accomplish the detailed visual inspection that is currently required by AD 83-02-09, it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the detailed visual inspection is estimated to be $60 per airplane.

Should an operator elect to accomplish the eddy current inspection that is currently required by AD 83-02-09, it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the eddy current inspection is estimated to be $60 per airplane.

Should an operator elect to accomplish the X-ray inspection that is currently required by AD 83-02-09, it will take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the X-ray inspection is estimated to be $180 per airplane.

The detailed visual inspection (for Model 727 series airplanes only) required by this AD will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the detailed visual inspection is estimated to be $4,860, or $60 per airplane.

The eddy current inspection (for Model 727 series airplanes only) required by this AD will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the eddy current inspection is estimated to be $4,860, or $60 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Boeing Model 707 and 720 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on August 10, 2000 (65 FR 48941). That action proposed to require repetitive inspections of certain stringers and around certain fastener holes of the lower skin of the wings to detect fatigue cracking, and repair, if necessary.

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

The commenter, Boeing, requests that all references to Model 720 series airplanes be deleted from the proposed rule. Specifically, Boeing suggests that:

• the Cost Impact paragraph be revised to specify that there are approximately “* * * 49 affected Model 707 series airplanes worldwide * * *;”

• paragraph (a) of the proposed rule be removed; and

• Note 2 of the proposed rule be revised to state that the actions required by AD 81-11-06 R1, amendment 39-4178, for Model 720 airplanes remain in effect. The commenter states that there are no Model 720 series airplanes in active service. In addition, the changes in Revision 4 of the referenced alert service bulletin affect only Model 707 series airplanes.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request to remove references to Model 720 series airplanes from this final rule. Even though no Model 720 series airplanes are currently in active service, including this model in the applicability of the final rule is necessary to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed on any Model 720 series airplane that is returned to service in the future. In addition, the FAA notes that several changes in Revision 4 of the alert service bulletin do, in fact, address Model 720 series airplanes. No change to this final rule is necessary.

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

There are approximately 49 Model 707 and 720 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 2 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 56 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 $6,720, or $3,360 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes, and Model A300 B4-600, A300 B4-600R, and A300 F4-600R (A300-600) series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on June 13, 2000 (65 FR 37084). That action proposed to require repetitive inspections to detect chafing and the existence of repairs of the harness of the high-level sensor of the fuel surge tanks, and to detect chafe marks on the support canisters of the magnetic level indicators; and follow-on corrective actions, if necessary. That action also proposed to require modification of the harness for the high-level sensor of the outer wing fuel tanks, which would terminate certain repetitive inspections.

Since the issuance of the proposed AD, the FAA has changed the manner in which it identifies the airplane models referred to as “Airbus Model A300 and A300-600 series airplanes” to reflect the model designation specified on the type certificate data sheet. This final rule has been revised to show the appropriate model designations for those airplanes.

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

The commenter recommends that the FAA only mandate the inspection service bulletins, and not the modification service bulletins. The commenter is convinced that the inspections alone are sufficient to ensure safety.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The FAA is aware that the Direction Ge ne rale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, did not mandate the modification in the French airworthiness directive that addresses the identified unsafe condition. However, as explained in the proposal, the FAA has determined that long-term continued operational safety will be better assured by design changes to remove the source of the problem, rather than by repetitive inspections. No additional data were submitted by the commenter that would cause the FAA to change its position in this regard. No change to the final rule is necessary.

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

The FAA estimates that 37 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required inspections, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspections required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $2,220, or $60 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

It will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required modification, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the modification required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $2,220, or $60 per airplane.

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

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on August 24, 2000 (65 FR 51560). That action proposed to require a revision to the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM); inspection to detect damage of the wiring and adjacent structure along the length of the fairing of the fuel boost pump; corrective actions, if necessary; and modification of the fuel pump wire and fairing.

The Direction Generale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, has issued French airworthiness directive 2000-419-154(B), dated October 4, 2000. That airworthiness directive includes a procedure for revising the AFM. In addition, if a fuel boost pump malfunctions, airworthiness directive procedures specify removing the wiring fairing to inspect the electrical wiring, fairing, and wing skin within the fairing area; and corrective actions, if necessary. Procedures also include a reporting requirement.

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

One commenter supports the AFM revision specified by the proposed AD.

Five commenters request deleting the requirement in paragraph (b) of the proposed AD, which specifies an inspection of the wiring and adjacent structure along the length of the fairing. All of the commenters are concerned that the inspection could induce more damage, even if operators exercise caution as recommended in the proposed AD.

One commenter states that in-service experience indicates that arcing of the underwing fuel pump wiring is mainly linked to poor maintenance action rather than to damage due to vibration and chafing. That commenter considers that most of the damage has occurred during fairing replacement when the fuel boost pump wire can be pinched and damaged. A second commenter concurs and suggests that the inspection specified in paragraph (b) be included in paragraph (c) of this AD, in case a circuit breaker tripped. A third commenter considers that removing the fairing is unnecessary, and that such action may cause needless damage to the wiring upon re-installation. In addition, the design of the system is such that, if a wire is trapped, the circuit breaker will trip and avert danger. A fourth commenter considers that the inspection increases the probability of inducing a fault despite heightened awareness, and that the inspection should be required only when terminating action is identified and applied before reinstalling the fairing. A fifth commenter notes that, if a fuel pump circuit breaker trips, a full inspection of the wiring underneath the fairing is required prior to further use of that pump. Further, that requirement should be enough to remove the need for the inspection specified by the proposed AD.

The FAA does not concur that the detailed visual inspection in paragraph (b) of the proposed AD should be deleted. We consider that the benefit from the one-time inspection outweighs the risk of wire damage during reassembly of the fairing. We have received reports of damaged wiring and arcing to the fuselage skin on in-service and newly manufactured airplanes, which indicate that additional airplanes may have pre-existing wire damage. In addition, we have found that intermittent arcing, which gradually eroded the adjacent aluminum structure and penetrated into the fuel tank, has occurred on other model airplanes without tripping the circuit breaker. Therefore, the possibility that such arcing damage could result in fuel leaking on top of the arcing wire justifies the one-time inspection.

We do not agree that the inspection increases the probability of inducing damage. We point out that the original fairing installations were done without any installation precautions. However, to ensure that wiring damage is not induced during replacement action, we included specific instructions cautioning operators to take special care when replacing the fairing. Those instructions, which were added to paragraph (b) of the proposed AD, make it unlikely that improper installation of the fairing will occur.

For these reasons, we consider that the one-time detailed visual inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD is needed to ensure that no critical condition exists in the fleet. Paragraph (b) has not been deleted in the final rule.

Two commenters state that, although the proposed AD specifies a one-time inspection (of all Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes), the previously referenced French airworthiness directive does not specify such an inspection. This difference should be included in the final rule so that other Civil Aviation Authorities can decide on the corrective actions they consider appropriate, and so that any confusion for the operators is avoided.

We concur with the request to specify this difference in the final rule. Note 4 of the final rule includes a statement that notifies operators of the difference between this AD and the French airworthiness directive.

One commenter requests adding a reference to the DGAC-approved AFM Temporary Revision (TR) 2.05.00/31 in paragraph (a) of the proposed AD as a means of compliance. That TR includes the same basic requirements defined in paragraph (a) of the proposed AD.

We concur with this request, and agree that the TR includes the same basic requirements defined in paragraph (a) of the proposed AD. Paragraph (a) of the final rule now states that “This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD or Airbus Temporary Revision 2.04.00/31 into the AFM.”

Two commenters request deleting the modification requirement specified by paragraph (e) of the proposed AD. One commenter states that a final fix is being developed and should be available by the end of this year. When the final fix is available, a new AD should be issued to mandate the modification. Another commenter considers that the modification should be required within 18 months after the modification is made available. However, since the modification is not currently available, that requirement should be removed from the AD.

We partially concur with the requests regarding the modification requirement in paragraph (e) of the proposed AD. Although a final modification has not been completely defined, we consider it imperative to speed up the development and installation of a modification to prevent any chance of the wires being damaged either during removal and replacement of the fairing, or due to vibration while the airplane is in service. We have determined that allowing an additional 6 months for development and testing of the modification is appropriate to ensure that the modification is effective and to allow enough time for incorporating the modification on in-service airplanes. The compliance time for the modification is extended from 18 to 24 months in paragraph (e) of the final rule.

The Air Transport Association (ATA) of America, on behalf of one of its members, states that re-installation of the fairing, per the “Installation of Fuel Pump Fairing” section of Airbus Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM) Task 28-21-49-400-001, requires the use of a sealant with a cure time of up to 16 hours. The commenter adds that the sealant curing process will have a severe economic impact on the airlines, which does not appear to be addressed in the Cost Impact paragraph of the NPRM.

We infer that the commenter requests a revision of the cost estimate in the proposed AD, but we do not concur that a revision to the cost estimate is necessary. While we agree that the previously referenced AMM specifies the use of sealant to reassemble the front fairing and cover plate, upon further review we have determined that it is not necessary to remove the front fairing and cover plate to inspect the portion of the wiring where damage has been found. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (b) in the final rule to require removal of only the “rear and intermediate” fairing. With this change, there is no requirement to apply sealant during accomplishment of the action required by paragraph (b) of this AD. No change to the cost estimate was made in the final rule.

One commenter requests that paragraph (c) of the proposed AD be deleted from the final rule. The airplane trouble-shooting manual (TSM) addresses what to do when a circuit breaker trips and includes procedures for checking the wiring, if necessary. The commenter adds that mandating the removal of the fairing to check the wiring when it is unnecessary may induce problems. In the past, the TSM procedure has been used to effectively locate any arcing of the pump wiring.

We do not concur that paragraph (c) should be deleted from this AD. While we agree that the TSM includes a procedure for checking the continuity of the wire, the check may not detect an exposed wire condition. In addition, there have been cases where the wire was not inspected and was later found to be damaged. Therefore, we consider that an inspection to determine the condition of the wire is necessary to ensure that no arcing condition exists. Paragraph (c) was not deleted in the final rule.

One commenter recommends revising paragraph (b)(2) of the proposed AD to include a reference to the Airbus Standard Repair Manual (SRM), and points out that paragraph (b)(1) of the proposed AD references standard practices of the manufacturer's Aircraft Wiring Manual. The commenter notes that, if any damage beyond SRM limits is found, [the commenter's] procedures specify seeking FAA or DGAC repair approval for structures that are the subject of AD's.

We concur with the request to revise the repair requirements. Because the SRM is approved by the DGAC, it may be used as the approved data source to repair any damage that does not exceed the limits specified in the SRM. We have revised paragraph (b)(2) in the final rule to include the SRM as another approved method for repairing the airplane structure.

We have clarified the inspection requirement contained in the proposed AD.

Although NOTE 2 in the proposal specified a detailed inspection, we have revised this final rule to clarify that its intent is to require a detailed visual inspection. NOTE 2 of the final rule has been changed accordingly.

Airbus advises that the circuit breakers for the wing fuel tank pump are designated as 1QA, 2QA, 7QA, and 8QA. We have added these circuit breaker designators to paragraph (a) of the final rule.

Airbus also advises that the Aircraft Wiring Manual (AWM), Standard Practices, Chapter 20, includes procedures for repairing damaged wire. As a result of this information, we have added repair to the existing replacement action as another method of compliance in paragraph (b)(1) of the final rule. We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD. This change provides operators with an option to either repair or replace the wire per the AWM.

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

We estimate that 306 Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

It will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required AFM revision, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AFM revision on U.S. operators is estimated to be $18,360, or $60 per airplane.

It will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspection (including time to remove the fairing), at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the wiring inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $36,720, or $120 per airplane.

Since the manufacturer has not yet developed a modification commensurate with the requirements of this AD, we are unable at this time to provide specific information as to the number of work hours or cost of parts that will be required to accomplish the modification. The compliance time of 24 months should provide ample time for the development, approval, and installation of an appropriate modification.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on June 12, 2000 (65 FR 36803). That action proposed to require replacement of the existing autothrottle computer with a new, improved autothrottle computer.

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

Two commenters state no objection to the proposed rule and indicate that the proposed replacements are already in progress on their fleets.

Three commenters request an increase in the compliance time above the proposed one year after the effective date of this AD. One commenter suggests a compliance time of 18 months, but states no reason for its request. A second commenter suggests a compliance time of two years, to account for the amount of time necessary for a particular repair station to accomplish the modification. A third commenter does not make a specific suggestion for a compliance time, though it states that it will need four years to complete the proposed replacement using existing spares, considering the amount of time necessary for the repair station (the same one referenced by the second commenter) to modify existing autothrottle computers.

The FAA concurs that the compliance time for the requirements of this AD may be extended. To assist in determining an appropriate compliance time, the FAA contacted the manufacturer of the autothrottle computers to determine the number of authorized repair facilities and the manpower available. The FAA also obtained data on the number of autothrottle computers manufactured, the number of units already converted, and the number of airplanes that are affected. Based on this information, the FAA finds that an extension of the compliance time to 18 months will be sufficient to allow accomplishment of this AD on all affected airplanes. The FAA also finds that such an extension of the compliance time will not adversely affect the continued safety of the airplane fleet. Therefore, paragraph (a) of this AD has been revised to state a compliance time of 18 months after the effective date of this AD.

One commenter requests that the FAA revise the proposed AD to remove paragraph (b), the “Spares” paragraph. That paragraph states, “As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install on any airplane, an autothrottle computer having part number 10-62017-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -11, -21, -23, -25, or -27.” The commenter's request was based on the length of time necessary for modification of the existing autothrottle computers by an authorized repair facility.

The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request to delete the “Spares” requirement. As stated previously, the FAA finds that extension of the compliance time for this AD from one year to 18 months after the effective date of this AD will allow adequate time for autothrottle computers to be modified by an authorized repair facility and for operators to comply with the requirements of this AD, without compromising safety. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

One commenter states that there is an inconsistency between the urgency of the unsafe condition, as explained in the proposal, and the length of the compliance time. The commenter points to the statement in the “Differences Between Proposed Rule and Alert Service Bulletin” section of the proposed AD, which reads, “The FAA also finds that such a compliance time will not adversely affect the safety of the affected airplanes.” The commenter states that it does not understand “an ‘unsafe condition’ that has already been identified that does not come into effect until 6th June 2001” and requests an explanation. The commenter also notes that the proposed AD does not contain any interim actions to be undertaken to ensure safety of the airplane fleet prior to accomplishment of the proposed replacement.

While the commenter makes no specific request for a change to the proposed AD, the FAA infers that the commenter is requesting that the FAA reduce the compliance time and include revisions to the flight procedures in this AD. The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. As explained in the proposed AD, in developing an appropriate compliance time for the proposed replacement, the FAA considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but also the number of proposed requirements and the availability of required parts. As stated previously in this AD, since the issuance of the proposed rule, the FAA has received information indicating that 18 months is an appropriate compliance time wherein all of these actions can be accomplished during scheduled airplane maintenance and an ample number of required parts will be available for modification of the U.S. fleet within the compliance period. The FAA also finds that such a compliance time will not adversely affect the safety of the affected airplanes.

With regard to the lack of interim actions in this AD, the FAA provides the following explanation. In 1994, the airplane manufacturer issued a Flight Operations Procedure to advise operators of an anomaly related to asymmetric thrust lever settings occurring during autothrottle operation. Such a procedure, if followed, adequately addresses the unsafe condition identified in this AD. However, this procedure does not take into account human factors that may result in the flightcrew failing to recognize an abnormality that develops over an extended period of time, resulting in an excessive bank angle for the airplane. There have been eight reported incidents of asymmetric thrust that occurred with delayed intervention by the pilots. Six of these eight incidents resulted in a bank angle of more than 30 degrees. In two incidents, airplanes have rolled more than 40 degrees before the flightcrew recognized the condition. For this reason, revisions to flight procedures are not considered adequate to provide the degree of safety assurance necessary for the transport airplane fleet. Consideration of these factors has led the FAA to mandate the replacement required by this AD. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.

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

There are approximately 1,974 Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 799 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required replacement, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost between $1,400 and $4,200 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be between $1,460 and $4,260 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 cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

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 .

What events have caused this AD? The FAA has received three reports of instances of misrouted cables in Raytheon Beech Models A36, B36TC, and 58 airplanes. In one instance, a report noted complete separation of the rudder cable. In another instance, a report noted fraying of the rudder cable.

What are the consequences if the condition is not corrected? This condition could result in guard pin wear and separation or fraying of the cables with loss of rudder control.

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 certain Raytheon Beech Models A36, B36TC, and 58 airplanes. This proposal published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on August 24, 2000 (65 FR 51562). The NPRM proposed to require you to inspect for misrouted rudder control cables; replace any worn or damaged guard pins; replace any pulley brackets that are damaged or worn; and replace any misrouted rudder control cables.

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

What is FAA's final determination on this issue? After careful review of 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 minor editorial corrections. We determined that these minor corrections:

How many airplanes does this AD impact? We estimate that this AD affects 842 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

What is the cost impact of this AD on owners/operators of the affected airplanes? We estimate the following costs to accomplish the inspection:

Does this AD impact various entities? 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.

Does this AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the final evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

What events have caused this AD? The Ente Nazionale per l'Aviazione Civile (ENAC), which is the airworthiness authority for Italy, recently notified FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Vulcanair Models P 68 “OBSERVER”, P68 “OBSERVER 2”, and P68TC “OBSERVER” airplanes. The ENAC reports three instances of cracking of the nose landing gear (NLG) upper strut, part number 4.4173-1, in the area of the seeger retaining ring groove. Investigation of these instances reveals a work defect found during surface finishing within the groove. The groove is then susceptible to cracks after a hard landing.

What are the consequences if the condition is not corrected? Such cracking, if not detected and corrected, could result in failure of the NLG upper strut, which could result in loss of control of the airplane.

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 certain Vulcanair Models P 68 “OBSERVER”, P68 “OBSERVER 2”, and P68TC “OBSERVER” airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on September 22, 2000 (65 FR 57296). The NPRM proposed to require you to inspect the NLG upper strut for evidence of cracking (cracks or crack beginnings), and replace the NLG upper strut if you find evidence of cracking.

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

What is FAA's final determination on this issue? After careful review of 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 minor editorial corrections. We determined that these minor corrections:

How many airplanes does this AD impact? We estimate that this AD affects 15 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

What is the cost impact of this AD on owners/operators of the affected airplanes? We estimate the following costs to accomplish the inspection:

Does this AD impact various entities? 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.

Does this AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the final evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 98-22-07, amendment 39-10854 (63 FR 57244, October 27, 1998), which is applicable to all Dornier Model 328-100 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on August 29, 2000 (65 FR 52365). The action proposed to continue to require revising the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to provide the flightcrew with additional information regarding procedures to ensure complete pressurization of the hydraulic lines for the flaps. The action also proposed to require revising the existing AFM revision to include a flap system test to be performed prior to the first flight of the day. Additionally, the action proposed to add a requirement, for certain airplanes, for modification of the flap actuators of the flight controls.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response to the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

There are approximately 52 airplanes of U.S. registry that will be affected by this AD.

The AFM revision that is currently required by AD 98-22-07, and retained in this AD, takes approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions on U.S. operators is approximately $3,120, or $60 per airplane.

The new AFM revision that is required by this AD will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the required AFM revision on U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,120, or $60 per airplane.

The new modification that is required by this AD will take approximately 4 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will be provided by the manufacturer at no cost to the operators. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the required modification on U.S. operators is estimated to be $240 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 99-17-11, amendment 39-11259 (64 FR 45868, August 23, 1999), which is applicable to certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on September 20, 2000 (65 FR 56814). The action proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections to detect wear of the inboard flap trunnions, and to detect wear or debonding of the protective half-shells; and corrective actions, if necessary. The action also proposed to require accomplishment of the previously optional terminating action.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response to the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

There are approximately 132 airplanes of U.S. registry that will be affected by this AD.

The actions that are currently required by AD 99-17-11, and retained in this AD, take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions on U.S. operators is approximately $7,920, or $60 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

The new actions that are required in this AD will take approximately 14 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will be provided by the manufacturer at no cost to the operators. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the new requirements of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $110,880, or $840 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

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.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation, which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Bombardier Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604) series airplanes. TCCA advises that it has received several reports of stiffness in the aileron controls following takeoff from a wet or snow/slush covered runway. The cause of the stiffness has been attributed apparently to water, ice or slush accumulation on the aileron quadrants and/or control cable pulleys in the wheel bay of the main landing gear (MLG) during ground roll, which subsequently froze during the climb to cruise altitude. This condition, if not corrected, could result in stiffness in the aileron controls and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

Bombardier has issued the following service bulletins:

The service bulletins describe procedures for installation of protection shields in the wheel bay of the MLG. Accomplishment of the action specified in the applicable service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. TCCA classified these service bulletins as mandatory and issued Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2000-30, dated September 12, 2000, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada.

These airplane models are manufactured in Canada and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of TCCA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, this AD is being issued to prevent water, ice or slush accumulation on the aileron quadrants and/or control cable pulleys in the wheel bay of the MLG during ground roll. Such water, ice or slush accumulation could subsequently freeze during the climb to cruise altitude and cause stiffness in the aileron controls, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. This AD requires accomplishment of the action specified in the service bulletins described previously.

The AD would differ from the parallel Canadian airworthiness directive in that it would require accomplishment of the installation within 45 days after the effective date of this AD. The parallel Canadian airworthiness directive recommends accomplishment of the installation within 120 days after October 25, 2000 (the effective date of the Canadian airworthiness directive). In developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, the FAA considered not only TCCA's recommendation, but the onset of inclement weather conditions, degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, and average utilization of the affected fleet. In light of these factors, the FAA finds a 45-day compliance time for initiating the required installation to be warranted, in that it represents an appropriate interval of time allowable for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety.

Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed.

Submit comments using the following format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.

• For each issue, state what specific change to the AD is being requested.

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each request.

Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-368-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

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 regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and that it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

What events have caused this AD? The FAA has received four reports of grooves cut in the pilot/copilot rudder interconnect tube. The grooves were discovered during routine inspections.

What are the consequences if the condition is not corrected? This condition could result in jamming or restricting rudder control.

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 certain Raytheon Beech Model 58 airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on September 7, 2000 (65 FR 54184). The NPRM proposed to require you to inspect the rudder bellcrank interconnect tube for damage; if necessary, replace or refinish the rudder bellcrank interconnect tube; and plug the floorboard screw hole.

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

What is FAA's Final Determination on this Issue? After careful review of 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 minor editorial corrections. We determined that these minor corrections:

How many airplanes does this AD impact? We estimate that this AD affects 491 airplanes in the U.S. registry.

What is the cost impact of this AD on owners/operators of the affected airplanes? We estimate the following costs to accomplish the modification of the floorboard and inspection of the rudder bellcrank interconnect tube:

Does this AD impact various entities? 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.

Does this AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the final evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES .

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2000 (65 FR 46203). That action proposed to require modification of the insulation blankets in the area surrounding the main external power ground studs.

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

The commenter indicates that it has completed the subject modification and has no objection to the proposed rule.

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

There are approximately 137 Model MD-11 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 28 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 2 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 $3,360, or $120 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, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2000 (65 FR 46204). That action proposed to require relocating the B7-28 bus located in the upper main circuit breaker in the rear cockpit observer's station from the lower to the upper terminals of the circuit breakers in Row P.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response to the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

There are approximately 144 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 56 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 2 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 $6,720, or $120 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 cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 2000-03-10, amendment 39-11569 (65 FR 8034, February 17, 2000), which is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2000 (65 FR 46206). That action proposed to continue to require a one-time inspection to detect discrepancies at certain areas around the entry light connector of the sliding ceiling panel above the forward passenger doors, and repair, if necessary. For certain airplanes, that action also proposed to continue to require installation or modification of a flapper door ramp deflector on the forward entry drop ceiling structure. For certain other airplanes, that action also proposed to continue to require inspection of the wire assembly support installation for evidence of chafing, and corrective actions, if necessary. For certain airplanes subject to the existing AD, as well as additional airplanes being added to the applicability of this new AD, that action proposed to add a requirement for modification of a support bracket for the ramp deflector assembly.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response to the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

There are approximately 110 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 21 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

The inspection to detect discrepancies around the entry light connector of the slide ceiling panel above the forward passenger doors that is currently required by AD 2000-03-10 takes approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this currently required inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $2,520, or $120 per airplane.

For Group 1 airplanes as specified in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD11-25A194, Revision 06 (approximately 16 airplanes of U.S. registry), the installation of the flapper door ramp deflector that is currently required by AD 2000-03-10 takes approximately 8 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts cost approximately $455 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this currently required installation on U.S. operators of Group 1 airplanes is estimated to be $14,960, or $935 per airplane.

For Group 2 airplanes as specified in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD11-25A194, Revision 06 (approximately 8 airplanes of U.S. registry), the installation of the flapper door ramp deflector that is currently required by AD 2000-03-10 takes approximately 8 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts cost approximately $890 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this currently required installation on U.S. operators of Group 2 airplanes is estimated to be $10,960, or $1,370 per airplane.

For airplanes listed in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD11-24A068, Revision 01, dated March 8, 1999 (approximately 21 airplanes of U.S. registry), the inspection of the wire assembly support installation that is currently required by AD 2000-03-10 takes approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this currently required inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,260, or $60 per airplane.

For airplanes in Groups 1 and 3 as specified in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD11-25A194, Revision 06 (approximately 18 airplanes of U.S. registry), the new modification that is required in this AD action will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this required modification on U.S. operators is estimated to be $2,160, or $120 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2000 (65 FR 46211). That action proposed to require an inspection to detect chafing or damage of the electrical wires leading to the terminal strips in the center accessory compartment (CAC) area; and corrective actions, if necessary. That action also proposed to require revising the wire connection stack up of certain cable terminals at the electrical power center bays in the CAC, and replacing certain terminal strips with new strips and removing applicable nameplates at electrical power center bays.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response to the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

There are approximately 151 Model MD-11 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 59 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately between 6 and 8 work hours per airplane depending on the configuration of the airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately between $1,091 and $1,256 per airplane depending on the configuration of the airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be between $85,609 and $102,424, or between $1,451 and $1,736 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2000 (65 FR 46214). That action proposed to require replacing the ground support bracket(s); and rerouting the ground cables of the galley external power and main external power, or ground cables of the main external power; as applicable.

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

The commenter states that there is a typographical error in the service bulletin citation in paragraph (a) of the proposed rule. The FAA concurs. Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule incorrectly references McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD11-24A128, dated April 3, 2000, as the appropriate source of service information for the accomplishment of the actions required by paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of the AD. The correct reference is McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin MD11-24A138, dated April 3, 2000. Paragraph (a) of this AD has been changed accordingly.

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

There are approximately 149 Model MD-11 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 55 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately between 1 (for Group 1 airplanes) and 2 (for Group 2 airplanes) work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $337 (for Group 1 airplanes) or $647 (for Group 2 airplanes) per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $21,835, or $397 per airplane (for Group 1 airplanes); or $42,185, or $767 per airplane (for Group 2 airplanes).

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2000 (65 FR 46216). That action proposed to require an inspection of the electrical wires routed above the door actuation cables for minimum .50-inch clearance with the door in the open and closed position, damage due to chafing or electrical arcing, or damaged door actuation cables; and corrective actions, if necessary.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response to the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

There are approximately 187 Model MD-11 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 64 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $7,680, or $120 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 cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2000 (65 FR 46218). That action proposed to require a one-time detailed visual inspection to detect discrepancies of all electrical wiring installations in various areas of the airplane; and corrective actions, if necessary.

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

One commenter requests that the FAA add a reporting requirement for the inspection findings. The commenter states that serious reporting is not possible using the reporting sheet attached to the referenced Boeing service bulletin. The commenter believes that it is important to collect the details of the inspection results using a database.

The FAA does not concur. The FAA understands the need to collect useful data in a consistent, detailed manner when investigating possible wiring service difficulties. However, the FAA has already conducted an extensive investigation of the wiring on McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series airplanes. As part of the investigation, the FAA has performed its own inspections on numerous in-service and in-production airplanes. The FAA has analyzed the data from the inspections and incorporated follow-on actions as part of a comprehensive corrective action plan; this AD is part of that plan. Therefore, the FAA has determined that the need for a reporting requirement for the required inspections to detect and correct minor wiring discrepancies in various areas of the airplane is not necessary.

One commenter notes that paragraph (c) of the NPRM reads, “If no gap between the wire bundle and blanket can be seen when pressure is applied to the blanket, before further flight, reposition wires or clamps so that a gap can been seen when pressure is applied to the blanket.” The commenter asks, “Will this requirement be valid for all the wire gauges in every area? Does this requirement replace the existing DPS 1.834-7, Par. 4.1.12.1?”

From these questions, the FAA infers that the commenter is requesting that the scope of the corrective action specified in paragraph (c) of the NPRM apply only to wiring that is routed over structural frames. The FAA concurs. In its attempt to provide instructions for accomplishing certain corrective actions, which were not provided in the referenced service bulletin (discussed in the preamble of the NPRM), the FAA did not carry forward the scope of the test requirement into the corrective action specified in paragraph (c) of the AD. For clarification purposes, the FAA has revised paragraph (c) of the final rule to read, “If no gap between the wire bundle and blanket can be seen where the wiring is routed over structural frames * * * .”

The FAA has reviewed and approved the following service bulletins:

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2000 (65 FR 46221). That action proposed to require an inspection of the one phase remote control circuit breaker (RCCB) in the main avionics compartment and center accessory compartment to determine its part number and serial number, and replacement of the RCCB with a certain RCCB, if necessary.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response to the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

There are approximately 187 Model MD-11 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 60 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 6 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $21,600, or $360 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 cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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

A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 2000-08-03, amendment 39-11689 (65 FR 21134, April 20, 2000), which is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11 series airplanes, was published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2000 (65 FR 46223). The action proposed to continue to require deactivation of the forward and center cargo control units (CCU). The action also proposed to require, among other actions, a general visual inspection to verify that all six external connectors of suspect CCU's have a certain part number stamped on the connector bodies on all CCU assemblies, and follow-on actions, which would constitute terminating action for the deactiviation requirements.

Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response to the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.

There are approximately 104 Model MD-11 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 20 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.

The actions that are currently required by AD 2000-08-03 take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the currently required actions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,200, or $60 per airplane.

The new inspection that is required in this AD action will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,200, or $60 per airplane.

Should an operator be required to accomplish the new modification that is required in this AD action, it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will be supplied by the manufacturer of the CCU at no cost to the operators. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the modification required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $60 per airplane.

Should an operator be required to accomplish the new replacement that is required in this AD action, it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will be supplied by the manufacturer of the CCU at no cost to the operators. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the replacement required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $60 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.

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.

Take notice that on January 31, 2001, the Staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will hold a public conference, as contemplated by Order No. 637,  1 to discuss how the changes in the natural gas market affect the way in which the Commission should regulate transportation transactions between pipelines and their affiliates, as well as between pipeline capacity holders and their affiliates, capacity managers and agents. The conference will begin at 1:00 p.m. in the Commission's Meeting Room at 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. All interested persons are invited to attend.

This conference is part of the continuing process established in Order No. 637,  2 to enable the industry and market participants to discuss with staff, and each other, issues relating to the development of Commission policy and regulatory responses so that Commission staff can develop “a better understanding of industry trends and regulatory changes that better meet the changing character of the industry.”  3 This is the second of three conferences to discuss these issues.

As stated in Order No. 637, this conference will focus on “whether the regulatory policy with respect to pipeline affiliates and non-affiliates, as well as asset managers and agents, should be revised to reflect the changing nature of the gas market” and “whether there needs to be revisions to the regulations relating to pipeline affiliates.”  4 Currently, the relationship between a pipeline and its marketing affiliate(s) is governed by the standards of conduct.  5 Market participants are also able to monitor pipeline/marketing affiliate relationships and capacity holder/affiliate relationships by obtaining specific information through various posting and reporting requirements. This conference is intended to open a dialog concerning the market consequences of transactions between pipelines and their affiliates as well as transactions between non-pipeline capacity holders and their affiliates.

This conference will be structured as a roundtable debate with staff as moderator. Panel participants will be selected after the submission of comments and will be announced in a subsequent notice. The debate roundtable format is intended to encourage a discussion of the issues, and, accordingly, participants will not be afforded the opportunity to make oral presentations at the conference. Parties are therefore encouraged to submit written comments by January 5, 2001 to: (1) provide input on how to structure the discussion; (2) identify issues and examples to foster a meaningful dialog; and (3) suggest questions the staff moderator may wish to pose to the panel.

Comments should include a one-page single spaced position summary. Each comment should indicate whether the party is interested in participating in the roundtable. To limit the number of panelists, parties with common positions are encouraged to select an appropriate spokesperson to allow balanced representation of each industry segment, such as pipelines, local distribution companies, producers, industrial end-users, electric utilities, marketer groups, state regulatory bodies, consumer groups, or other recognized industry trade organizations or groups. Comments should be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20426, and should refer to Docket No. PL00-1-000. Each request to participate must include a contact person, telephone number and e-mail address.

Commenters are encouraged to address the following areas:

Current Regulatory Approach: Comments should address the effectiveness of the current standards of conduct under Part 161 of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part 161 (2000), including a discussion of experiences in which the rules have been successful or unsuccessful, and whether the costs imposed by the current rules exceed the benefits. Comments should also address whether the affiliate transaction and index of customer reporting under sections 284.13(b)(1)(ix) and 284.13(c)(1)(ix), respectively, are effective in monitoring affiliate market activity.

Potential Affiliate Concerns: Comments should discuss whether, and in what circumstances, affiliate transactions pose the potential for anticompetitive or discriminatory effects or explain why such effects are not likely. Comments asserting that affiliate transactions do pose anticompetitive/discriminatory risks should provide examples or scenarios in which there is the potential for such effects. Comments also should address whether the same or different risks apply depending on the nature of the affiliate, gas or power marketer, asset manager, electric generator, or local distribution company. Comments should explore the impact of the changing market conditions on the potential, if any, for a pipeline or capacity holder, to give preferential treatment to an affiliate. Comments may also consider the potential market or consumer benefits of permitting affiliate transactions. Comments should focus on whether the problem or benefit relates to the ability to acquire services, construction of facilities, the rates at which services are acquired, the quality of that service, or other factors.

Potential Approaches for Dealing with Affiliates: Comments should address whether there may be better methods of regulating affiliate transactions that should be used in lieu of the current standards of conduct and reporting requirements. Some alternatives that could be considered are: maintaining open and fair bidding procedures; prohibitions on affiliates holding capacity on the affiliated pipeline; limitations on an affiliate's capacity market share; changes in open-season bidding evaluations to break-up large capacity packages; or divestiture of affiliates. Similar approaches could be considered for affiliates of non-pipeline capacity holders. Comments need to address the costs and benefits of adopting these approaches and whether there is a potential adverse impact on the market, such as the risk of unsubscribed pipeline capacity, potential cost shifts, or difficulties in planning new pipeline construction without reliance on affiliate contracts.

Comments should consider whether changes to the current standards of conduct approach should be made in light of the current operation and changing nature of the industry. Specifically, comments should discuss the options of eliminating, expanding or modifying the standards of conduct, whether there is a need for uniform standards of conduct for all sellers or holders of jurisdictional capacity, and whether there should continue to be distinctions in the treatment of affiliate relationships, and ownership rules, between the gas and electric industries.

The Capitol Connection may broadcast this conference in the Washington, D.C. area if there is sufficient interest. For those interested persons outside the Washington, D.C. area, the Capitol Connection may broadcast the conference via live satellite for a fee if there is sufficient interest to justify the cost. To indicate interest in either the local or national broadcast, please call David Reininger or Julia Morelli at the Capitol Connection at 703-993-3100 as soon as possible.

In addition, National Narrowcast Network's Hearing-On-The-Line service covers all FERC meetings live by telephone so that interested persons can listen at their desks, from their homes, or from any phone, without special equipment. Billing is based on time on-line. Call 202-966-2211 for further details. Anyone interested in purchasing videotapes of the meeting should call VISCOM at 703-715-7999.

Questions about the conference should be directed to: Robert A. Flanders, Office of Markets Tariffs and Rates, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 202-208-2084. e-mail: Robert.Flanders@ferc.fed.us.

This document is available as an electronic file on The Federal Bulletin Board the day of publication in the Federal Register . By modem, dial 202/512-1387 and type “/GO FAC,” or call 202/512-1530 for disk or paper copies. This file is available for downloading without charge in ASCII and Adobe Acrobat® readable (*.PDF) formats. For Internet access, the address for use with the World Wide Web (Home Page), Telnet, or FTP protocol is: fedbbs.access.gpo.gov. This document and additional information concerning the programs of the Office of Foreign Assets Control are available for downloading from the Office's Internet Home Page: http://www.treas.gov/ofac, or in fax form through the Office's 24-hour fax-on-demand service: call 202/622-0077 using a fax machine, fax modem, or (within the United States) a touch-tone telephone.

Appendix A to 31 CFR chapter V contains the names of blocked persons, specially designated nationals, specially designated terrorists, foreign terrorist organizations, and specially designated narcotics traffickers designated pursuant to the various economic sanctions programs administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). Pursuant to section 804(b) of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act, 21 U.S.C. 1903(b), on June 1, 2000, President Clinton identified twelve individuals as significant foreign narcotics traffickers. In accordance with section 598.314 of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 598, those twelve individuals are added to appendix A as specially designated narcotics traffickers. The notes to the appendixes to 31 CFR chapter V are amended to add the term “[SDNTK]” to refer to those persons designated as specially designated narcotics traffickers under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Sanctions Regulations.

As of June 1, 2000, all property and interests in property, including but not limited to all accounts, that are or come within the United States or that are or come within the possession or control of U.S. persons, including their overseas branches, that are owned or controlled by those twelve persons are blocked. All transactions or dealings by U.S. persons or within the United States in property or interests in property of those twelve persons are prohibited unless licensed by the Office of Foreign Assets Control or otherwise authorized.

In addition, the Office of Foreign Assets Control is adding to appendix A the names of three individuals and five entities who have been determined to play a significant role in international narcotics trafficking centered in Colombia, to materially assist in or provide financial support or technological support for, or goods or services in support of the narcotics trafficking activities of other specially designated narcotics traffickers, or to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of, persons designated in or pursuant to Executive Order 12978 of October 21, 1995, “Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers” (the “Order”), and section 536.312 of the Narcotics Trafficking Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 536 (collectively “Specially Designated Narcotics Traffickers” or “SDNTs”). All real and personal property in which the SDNTs have any interest, including but not limited to all accounts, that are or come within the United States or that are or come within the possession or control of U.S. persons, including their overseas branches, are blocked. All transactions by U.S. persons or within the United States in property or interests in property of SDNTs are prohibited unless licensed by the Office of Foreign Assets Control or exempted by statute. Supplementary information is added to an existing SDNT entry for one individual, and that entry is revised in its entirety.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control also is removing from appendix A the entries for two individuals because it has been determined that they no longer meet the criteria for designation as SDNTs under the Order and the Narcotics Trafficking Sanctions Regulations. All real and personal property of these two individuals, including all accounts in which they have any interest, that had been blocked solely due to their designation as SDNTs, is unblocked; and all lawful transactions involving U.S. persons and these individuals previously barred as a result of their designation are permissible.

Designations of foreign persons blocked pursuant to the Order are effective upon the date of determination by the Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control, acting under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Treasury. Public notice of blocking is effective upon the date of filing with the Federal Register , or upon prior actual notice.

Finally, in furtherance of section 303 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. 2339B (“AEDPA”), implemented in part by the Foreign Terrorist Organizations Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 597 (the “FTO Regulations”), the Office of Foreign Assets Control is adding the name of one foreign terrorist organization to appendix A to 31 CFR chapter V. Section 303 of AEDPA, as implemented in section 597.201 of the FTO Regulations, requires financial institutions in possession or control of funds in which a foreign terrorist organization or its agent has an interest to block such funds except as authorized pursuant to the FTO Regulations, and to file reports in accordance with the FTO Regulations.

The foreign terrorist organization, The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, was designated by the Secretary of State in a notice published in the Federal Register on September 25, 2000 (65 FR 57641), pursuant to section 302 of AEDPA, 8 U.S.C. 1189, which authorizes the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, to designate organizations meeting stated requirements as FTOs, with prior notification to Congress of the intent to designate.

Because this rule involves a foreign affairs function, Executive Order 12866 and the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date, are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.

The NFIP enables property owners to purchase flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq. , unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59 et seq. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. However, some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue their eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of the communities will be published in the Federal Register .

In addition, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has identified the special flood hazard areas in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of the FIRM if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in the identified special flood hazard area of communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year, on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's initial flood insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Associate Director finds that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

Each community receives a 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification addressed to the Chief Executive Officer that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications have been made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

The Associate Director has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless they take remedial action.

This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, October 26, 1987, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 252.

This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778, October 25, 1991, 56 FR 55195, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 309.

We published final regulations for awarding high performance bonuses to States under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program on August 30, 2000 (65 FR 52814). The final regulations specified the measures on which we will base high performance bonus awards and the funds allocation formula.

The measures specified in § 270.4(d) are based on the participation by low-income families in the Medicaid/State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). In § 270.4(d), we are making two word changes:

1. § 270.4(d)(1)(i) as published on August 30, 2000, reads as follows:

“Beginning in FY 2002, we will measure the number of individuals receiving TANF benefits who are also enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP, who leave TANF in a calendar year and are enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP in the fourth month after leaving TANF assistance, and who are not receiving TANF assistance in the fourth month as a percentage of individuals who left TANF in the fiscal year and are not receiving TANF assistance in the fourth month after leaving.”

In this section, we are making one correction. We are deleting the word “calendar” and substituting the word “fiscal.” We are measuring performance based on the fiscal year, rather than the calendar year.

2. § 270.4(d)(2)(ii) as published on August 30, 2000, reads as follows:

“For any given year, we will compare a State's performance on this improvement measure to its performance in the previous year, beginning with a comparison of FY 2000 to FY 2001, based on a quarterly submission by the State as determined by matching individuals (adults and children) who have left TANF assistance and who are not receiving it in the fourth month with Medicaid or SCHIP enrollment data.”

In this section, we are deleting the word “it” and substituting the words “TANF assistance” for clarity.

In the preamble to the final regulations for the high performance bonus, we listed a number of other TANF regulations we had published. That list included the September 23, 1998 publication of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking covering the annual reports of State child poverty rates in relation to the TANF program (63 FR 52814). We are updating this information to note that the final regulation regarding child poverty and the TANF program was published on June 23, 2000 (65 FR 39233).

Also in the preamble to the high performance bonus final regulations, on page 52820 we summarized the major changes in and provisions of the final rule. We are revising item #13 regarding the child care measure to clarify the fiscal years the various components of the child care measure are in effect. The revised language reads as follows:

“Bases competition in FY 2002 on a child care measure which focuses on child care accessibility (the percent of CCDF-eligible children receiving services) and affordability (assessed family co-payments), using data the States currently report to us under the CCDF program; in FY 2003, a component on child care quality is added based on State reimbursement rates.”

We are removing 45 CFR part 276, the data collection and reporting requirements pertaining to participants in the WtW program, because the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 106-113), signed into law on November 29, 1999, revised the data collection and reporting requirements for the Welfare-to-Work (WtW) program under sections 403(a)(5) and 411 of the Social Security Act (Act) to place all the responsibility with the Department of Labor (DOL). At the time we published the interim final rule (October, 1998), DOL and the Department of Health and Human Services shared these responsibilities.

The Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act also removed the WtW participant reporting requirements from section 411 of the Act.

The legislation that created the WtW program was in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. 105-33. DOL's implementation of this legislation included the publication of an interim final rule on November 18, 1997 (62 FR 615588). This interim final rule specified program and administrative requirements, including financial reporting requirements, for formula grantees and competitive grantees. We (ACF) published an interim final rule on October 29, 1998, to implement the reporting requirements related to participant characteristics in the WtW program that were contained in section 411 of the Act.

When the Omnibus Appropriations Act placed responsibility for all data collection with the DOL, the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) of DOL published a notice of proposed information collection requirements for the WtW program on August 20, 2000 (65 FR 51034). Specifically, the notice requested public comment on revisions to two DOL quarterly status reports, i.e. , ETA #9068—Report by Formula Grantees and ETA #9068-1—Report by Competitive Grantees. The DOL revisions included reporting of WtW participant data consistent with the amendments under the Omnibus Appropriations Act.

The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) requires that the Department publish a notice of proposed rulemaking unless the Department finds, for good cause, that such notice is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. In this instance, this notice involves only a withdrawal of regulations that are no longer valid and two minor editorial corrections. Accordingly, the Department has determined that it would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest to use notice and comment procedures in issuing these amendments.

No impact analysis is needed for these amendments.